The basic WCK punch

[t_niehoff]

We all know the basic WCK punch, the jik chung choi, right? We do it in the beginning of every empty hand set, we do it in our drills/exercises.

So, why do we learn and practice doing the jik chung choi on the centerline (and from our center line)? Why is this the most basic punch, some might say the foundation, of WCK?

(And I won't pull a Henrik, I will give my answer).

[k gledhill]

We all know the basic WCK punch, the jik chung choi, right? We do it in the beginning of every empty hand set, we do it in our drills/exercises.

So, why do we learn and practice doing the jik chung choi on the centerline (and from our center line)? Why is this the most basic punch, some might say the foundation, of WCK?

(And I won't pull a Henrik, I will give my answer).

not 'on', across the centerline....wrists x, elbows touch it ...very important.
like the preceeding x'ing of the wrists on the line and back.

[t_niehoff]

OK, so what are your answers to my questions?

[Graham H]

We all know the basic WCK punch, the jik chung choi, right? We do it in the beginning of every empty hand set, we do it in our drills/exercises.

So, why do we learn and practice doing the jik chung choi on the centerline (and from our center line)? Why is this the most basic punch, some might say the foundation, of WCK?

(And I won't pull a Henrik, I will give my answer).

The VT straight punch allows us to attack and defend simultaneously whilst taking most direct path to the target. The punch must intersect the centerline in order to do this so that Wu Sau can become the next punch and if any of your opponents limbs are in the way the punch opens the way for the next strike by using the elbow to deflect. This is the basic concepts of Tan Sau and Fook Sau. It is the not the fist that is on the center but rather the elbow.
With the fist vertical and the elbow in front of the body it forms a line to the ground so we can punch using body structure. This is vital for developing any real power whilst fighting close.

This idea is not clear until Chum Kiu as Siu Lim Tau teaches us position, the correct path of the elbow for the punch increases strength in the stance.

GH

Terrence you're asking a question that can get lost in translation from the written word. I can show this in 30 seconds but argue about it for 30 years on the internet. :)

[t_niehoff]

The VT straight punch allows us to attack and defend simultaneously whilst taking most direct path to the target. The punch must intersect the centerline in order to do this so that Wu Sau can become the next punch and if any of your opponents limbs are in the way the punch opens the way for the next strike by using the elbow to deflect. This is the basic concepts of Tan Sau and Fook Sau. It is the not the fist that is on the center but rather the elbow.
With the fist vertical and the elbow in front of the body it forms a line to the ground so we can punch using body structure. This is vital for developing any real power whilst fighting close.

This idea is not clear until Chum Kiu as Siu Lim Tau teaches us position, the correct path of the elbow for the punch increases strength in the stance.

GH

How does the "VT straight punch allows us to attack and defend simultaneously" if your opponent isn't striking on the exact same line as your punch (can't he go underneath it, over it, around it, etc.)? Your arm is only in one line, doesn't the opponent have a multitude of others to use? Can you use your "VT straight punch" to stop a hook, an overhand, a swing?

And, can't I also attack and defend simultaneously without using a straight (centerline) punch?

[chusauli]

Why isn't it clear until Chum Kiu?

Or is that just useless dogma of an adherent? :)

[Graham H]

Why isn't it clear until Chum Kiu?

Or is that just useless dogma of an adherent? :)


Simply because we don't move or pivot in SLT Robert. Its as simple as that unless you can fight whilst being welded to the ground in which case can I come to your school?? :)

GH

[Graham H]

This idea of the punches crossing is presented at the end of SLT just before Chum Kiu. Unfortunately most people think these actions are to escape from wrist grabs. Boooooooooo!!!

[chusauli]

Simply because we don't move or pivot in SLT Robert. Its as simple as that unless you can fight whilst being welded to the ground in which case can I come to your school?? :)

GH

If you'd like to visit sometime, I would welcome you. :)

I am asking because from my POV, one doesn't need to shift for power, and you already learn stepping before you learn Chum Kiu.

Loose steps like Bik Ma, Biu Ma, Sam Gwok Ma, etc. are already taught in an early curriculum. Combine that with striking, and you already have a basis for a good punch.

So, do you still need Chum Kiu?

[Graham H]

How does the "VT straight punch allows us to attack and defend simultaneously" if your opponent isn't striking on the exact same line as your punch (can't he go underneath it, over it, around it, etc.)? Your arm is only in one line, doesn't the opponent have a multitude of others to use? Can you use your "VT straight punch" to stop a hook, an overhand, a swing?

And, can't I also attack and defend simultaneously without using a straight (centerline) punch?

By using the elbow to cut into the inside for the punch (fook Sau) or spread out from the center to the outside (tan sau). Both in turn defend the center whilst punching. The idea is to open the way for striking with the punches (and if needed pak, jut or bong to help) The idea is to turn your opponent so that he can't hit with his closest arm and the way has been cut for his furthest arm. As for defending against hooks then this is where the idea of Lut Sau Jik Chung comes in. We must interrupt the incoming attack by attacking the opponents balance. If we do this then any hook punch will not arrive. There are so many factors that need to be covered in order to explain my thinking that can be shown in no time at all. The written word is the worst way to convey each others messages and I think if we all agree on this then we will stop getting into fruitless arguments.

Because the VT attack is very linear in its execution the "hook punch" can pose many problems. Most use Tan Sau to spread out and deflect or stop the punch but I have been shown that this idea is not good. I was a boxer. I trained with boxers and there is only one way to defend a hook and that is to attack the person throwing it. Trying to block it causes so many problems especially if the guy throwing it knows what he is doing.

What I will say to avoid any complaints is that a well rounded fighter will destroy your average Wing Chun fighter. However if you have a Wing Chun fighter that can fight then its a different story. Maybe the outcome isnt so certain.

There is a website that is dedicated to taking the p**s out of Wing Chun you know. Has any other Martial Skill had so much bad press???? I dont think so.

GH

[Graham H]

If you'd like to visit sometime, I would welcome you. :)

I am asking because from my POV, one doesn't need to shift for power, and you already learn stepping before you learn Chum Kiu.

Loose steps like Bik Ma, Biu Ma, Sam Gwok Ma, etc. are already taught in an early curriculum. Combine that with striking, and you already have a basis for a good punch.

So, do you still need Chum Kiu?

Robert,

I was going to come and visit you years and years ago if you remember.

Ok so we have different ideas on WCK. In my system SLT is like your alphabet before you start to learn how to make words and sentences. The words and sentences being Chum Kiu and Chi Sau........ An explanation that WSL said frequently........ SLT???? Its an exercise so that we can learn the fundamentals and correct errors that we all have. We don't learn to pivot or step until we have the correct usage of the elbow. If we introduce things like stepping and pivoting to early then the error will remain and increase. Chum Kiu is where we learn to fight. So many people have it different but like I keep saying I like WSL and Philipp Bayers ideas.

GH

[Xiao3 Meng4]

Wanna play a cool little beginner's game?

Try fixed-step boxing.

Equipment Needed

Mouth Guard (Required)
Athletic Support (Required)
Headgear (Required)
Boxing gloves (Required)
Chest Protector (Recommended)

Here's the repetitive drill (I call them rhythm drills):

Partners stand square to each other, within punching distance.
Partner A punches 3 punches at partner B, who absorbs the punches with their guard. Partner B then punches 3 punches at partner A, who absorbs the punches with their guard. Repeat.

Objective: make your partner take a step by Punching them and without taking a step yourself.

Technical Rules: Only Punches are allowed. No punching to the head or legs. No stepping. No clinching. Partners must observe the rhythm of the drill.

Experiences had: Attempting to move your opponent by punching them; attempting to stand your ground while being punched.

Expected results: certain types of punches will consistently achieve the objective more effectively than others.

In my experience, the top 3 are the centerline punch, boxing cross, and body-uppercut punches. Of these, the most basic is the centerline punch.

The drill can be built on from here, with the addition of mobility, bridging, target specificity, broken timing and the like.

[t_niehoff]

By using the elbow to cut into the inside for the punch (fook Sau) or spread out from the center to the outside (tan sau). Both in turn defend the center whilst punching. The idea is to open the way for striking with the punches (and if needed pak, jut or bong to help) The idea is to turn your opponent so that he can't hit with his closest arm and the way has been cut for his furthest arm.


That *may* work when your opponent is throwing neat straight, elbow down punches provided a whole lot of things fall just your way.

How do you turn your opponent?



As for defending against hooks then this is where the idea of Lut Sau Jik Chung comes in. We must interrupt the incoming attack by attacking the opponents balance. If we do this then any hook punch will not arrive.


This is a very high risk approach isn't it? A stop hit strategy? You do know that you can still hit the opponent with your straight punch and it not prevent his hook, right? You see that happen in boxing all the time.

So basically, what you are telling me is that your view is that the WCK punch, the jik chung choi, is essentially to deflect incoming straight punches and stop hit any other punches (hooks, swings, overhands, bolo, etc.)?



Because the VT attack is very linear in its execution the "hook punch" can pose many problems. Most use Tan Sau to spread out and deflect or stop the punch but I have been shown that this idea is not good. I was a boxer. I trained with boxers and there is only one way to defend a hook and that is to attack the person throwing it. Trying to block it causes so many problems especially if the guy throwing it knows what he is doing.


I don't think you trained with good boxers. There are all kinds of PROVEN ways boxers use in dealing with hooks.

So what you are saying is that in your view and from your training, WCK doesn't have any good way of dealing with a hook except to throw a straight punch at your opponent in the hope that it will stop-hit him?



What I will say to avoid any complaints is that a well rounded fighter will destroy your average Wing Chun fighter.


If he is a fighter, then he isn't your average WCK guy. ;)

[t_niehoff]

Wanna play a cool little beginner's game?

Try fixed-step boxing.

Equipment Needed

Mouth Guard (Required)
Athletic Support (Required)
Headgear (Required)
Boxing gloves (Required)
Chest Protector (Recommended)

Here's the repetitive drill (I call them rhythm drills):

Partners stand square to each other, within punching distance.
Partner A punches 3 punches at partner B, who absorbs the punches with their guard. Partner B then punches 3 punches at partner A, who absorbs the punches with their guard. Repeat.

Objective: make your partner take a step by Punching them and without taking a step yourself.

Technical Rules: Only Punches are allowed. No punching to the head or legs. No stepping. No clinching. Partners must observe the rhythm of the drill.

Experiences had: Attempting to move your opponent by punching them; attempting to stand your ground while being punched.

Expected results: certain types of punches will consistently achieve the objective more effectively than others.

In my experience, the top 3 are the centerline punch, boxing cross, and body-uppercut punches. Of these, the most basic is the centerline punch.

The drill can be built on from here, with the addition of mobility, bridging, target specificity, broken timing and the like.

You are very close to what my answer is.

[Graham H]

Terrence I love you and want to have your babies. :D

[t_niehoff]

Terrence I love you and want to have your babies. :D

Then you should start by at least getting the spelling of my name correct. ;)

[GlennR]

Ok, ill have a go...

Its short, sharp and sweet (pretty obvious)

It generates a surprising amount of force from a short distance (pretty obvious again)

It puts the arm in a good position for control of the other persons structure if it does happen to clash with his arms on its way through, utilising the WC tools once this has happened (should be pretty obvious)

[shawchemical]

That *may* work when your opponent is throwing neat straight, elbow down punches provided a whole lot of things fall just your way.

How do you turn your opponent?



This is a very high risk approach isn't it? A stop hit strategy? You do know that you can still hit the opponent with your straight punch and it not prevent his hook, right? You see that happen in boxing all the time.

So basically, what you are telling me is that your view is that the WCK punch, the jik chung choi, is essentially to deflect incoming straight punches and stop hit any other punches (hooks, swings, overhands, bolo, etc.)?



I don't think you trained with good boxers. There are all kinds of PROVEN ways boxers use in dealing with hooks.

So what you are saying is that in your view and from your training, WCK doesn't have any good way of dealing with a hook except to throw a straight punch at your opponent in the hope that it will stop-hit him?



If he is a fighter, then he isn't your average WCK guy. ;)

YOu don't think at all T.

[k gledhill]

OK, so what are your answers to my questions?

You dont understand the punching centerline idea....so i'm trying to elucidate that point.
:D

[SAAMAG]

We all know the basic WCK punch, the jik chung choi, right? We do it in the beginning of every empty hand set, we do it in our drills/exercises.

So, why do we learn and practice doing the jik chung choi on the centerline (and from our center line)? Why is this the most basic punch, some might say the foundation, of WCK?

(And I won't pull a Henrik, I will give my answer).

We learn to punch on the centerline because the centerline houses the bulk of a persons mass in addition to many vital points on the human body. Punching off the centerline can prove not as beneficial because of the natural ability for a person to shrug off or roll with the strike.

It's also IMO a fundamental strike because it's mechanically ideal to work in the close range atmosphere that wing chun deals with. The piston-like motion proves to work well at penetrating into the target quickly, allowing the whole of the punchers body to support it.

[YungChun]

Aids in focusing body mass/alignment/following/facing/pressing (hammer to nail)

Similar elements in part:

COM to COM connection--energy issuing
Shortest Path to COM
Centerline/elbow occupation/displacement
Can force/create a bridge/connection
Maintains Chun's baijong integrity when releasing force
Powerful from short/close distance
Aids continuity of linear force projection
Aids in hand unity--proximity of tools to each other
Quickly changes into most other tools
Economical and efficient use of time and space.. :)
Looks cool when done correctly.. :D

[Graham H]

You dont understand the punching centerline idea...
:D


I agree!!!!!

[LSWCTN1]

We all know the basic WCK punch, the jik chung choi, right? We do it in the beginning of every empty hand set, we do it in our drills/exercises.

So, why do we learn and practice doing the jik chung choi on the centerline (and from our center line)? Why is this the most basic punch, some might say the foundation, of WCK?

(And I won't pull a Henrik, I will give my answer).

I agree with many of the posts, it operates as a piston and can come out and back without any sort of displacement to your own structure.

in line with the Bayer approach of tan and jum punching, my opinion is that a wck is a tok sau action - it lifts the opponent, therefore breaking his structure. In fighting we DO get hit, but if we can take the power out of it then its not always so bad.

striking the centre makes the opponent 'rolling' with the punch more difficult, but people who say it is the shortest distance are incorrect. its a very specific tactic to utilise your lat's and not your shoulder for power and mainly to intersect the centre line to cover the angle of the opponents punch.

elbow down also helps us to perform the purpose of chum kui properly. seek and destroy the bridge. on the outside the elbow takes their forearm and the lat pushes the power out, if the outside is the only line you can get then i would ordinarily advise to turn your body for striking. in the same way as jkeeping you bong on centre whilst turning

also, sinking to absorb an opponents power and rising to release it back to them is supported by the downwards elbow, which connects itself to the rest of your power base

[Graham H]

in line with the Bayer approach of tan and jum punching, my opinion is that a wck is a tok sau action - it lifts the opponent, therefore breaking his structure. In fighting we DO get hit, but if we can take the power out of it then its not always so bad.

We don't have Tok Sau so I can't comment.........



........ the purpose of chum kui properly. seek and destroy the bridge.

The purpose of Chum kiu is to teach one a method of fighting in the most economical way and be direct to the target.

The bridge is the path to your opponent. Is that what you mean????

Many people think that Chum Kiu is about making contact with a bridge (forearms) and controlling them. That way is not good for fighting and why so many misinterpreted systems of WC are pants IMO.

If your opponent doesnt allow you to make contact with his arms that method falls flat on its ass. I'd rather adopt an approach where we learn how to fight the person NOT the arms. ;)

GH

[LoneTiger108]

We all know the basic WCK punch, the jik chung choi, right? We do it in the beginning of every empty hand set, we do it in our drills/exercises.

So, why do we learn and practice doing the jik chung choi on the centerline (and from our center line)? Why is this the most basic punch, some might say the foundation, of WCK?

(And I won't pull a Henrik, I will give my answer).

First of all, NOW you want us all to use YOUR term?? :eek:

FWIW Jik Sin Chung KUEN is performed at the beginnning of the Lee Shing Family forms (the independent STRAIGHT left & right hand fistwork) followed by Tsong Sin Chun CHOI (the three/five CENTRAL continuous fistwork).

Basically, the hammer works better in multiples as a stun tactic over the centre line. The charging fist, well, does exactly that! It charges through everything in straight lines- immovable elbow and all that jazz.

Key differences to what you have trained no doubt T...

[t_niehoff]

First of all, NOW you want us all to use YOUR term?? :eek:


Jik chung choi is the basic, generic term -- straight thrusting punch.



FWIW Jik Sin Chung KUEN is performed at the beginnning of the Lee Shing Family forms (the independent STRAIGHT left & right hand fistwork) followed by Tsong Sin Chun CHOI (the three/five CENTRAL continuous fistwork).


It's all the same sh1t.



Basically, the hammer works better in multiples as a stun tactic over the centre line. The charging fist, well, does exactly that! It charges through everything in straight lines- immovable elbow and all that jazz.

Key differences to what you have trained no doubt T...

I was asking about the basic WCK punch, not variations (not the turning punch, the raising punch, the bouncing punch, etc., not linking chain punching, not three star punching, etc.).

And you haven't answered my question about the basic WCK punch.

[LoneTiger108]

It's all the same sh1t.

And you haven't answered my question about the basic WCK punch.

Well you would say that :(

You haven't answered your question either T, as you stated you would.

Are we all to call you Hendrik Jnr now?

[t_niehoff]

Well you would say that :(

You haven't answered your question either T, as you stated you would.

Are we all to call you Hendrik Jnr now?

Just waiting to see if anyone else has an answer -- apparently most people don't know why they do it!

[k gledhill]

some don't know even after 30 years...

[t_niehoff]

some don't know even after 30 years...

I am truly sorry that you don't know.

BTW, I can even tell by looking at Bayer's punching

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZJgyPLvlsk

that he doesn't know (as he is not DOING it).

What is it he is not DOING with his punch?

I bet YungChun and Vankuen will see it straight away.

[k gledhill]

I am truly sorry that you don't know.

BTW, I can even tell by looking at Bayer's punching

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZJgyPLvlsk

that he doesn't know (as he is not DOING it).

What is it he is not DOING with his punch?

I bet YungChun and Vankuen will see it straight away.

if he isn't doing what YOU think then that's a good thing ! fool.

[Knifefighter]

I am truly sorry that you don't know.

BTW, I can even tell by looking at Bayer's punching

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZJgyPLvlsk

that he doesn't know (as he is not DOING it).

What is it he is not DOING with his punch?

I bet YungChun and Vankuen will see it straight away.

I can tell you one thing. When someone has nothing but scores of demo clips like that and not a single one of any actual full-contact fighting, there is very little fighting application coming out of that school.

[LoneTiger108]

Just waiting to see if anyone else has an answer -- apparently most people don't know why they do it!

No mate! You're waiting to see if anyone has YOUR answer :D

No point in me sharing what I know as you will dismiss it anyway! It's all a bit boring to be fair. Must be something to do with you Chu Family guys?

Or is it Hendrik Jr now? :o

[t_niehoff]

No mate! You're waiting to see if anyone has YOUR answer :D

No point in me sharing what I know as you will dismiss it anyway! It's all a bit boring to be fair. Must be something to do with you Chu Family guys?

Or is it Hendrik Jr now? :o

What does it matter if I dismiss it or not? Do you think that unless I pat you on the back and say "well done" that you shouldn't share your view? Do you want and expect praise?

This is a forum to discuss WCK. I asked a very simple question. I think there has been some very good points already made here by Vankuen, YungChun, and LSWCTN1. They are in many ways in line with my view.

I'll wait and see if anything more comes in before I post my view. But see if this helps -- why do I not need an open line or care about opening lines for my jik chung choi?

[LoneTiger108]

What does it matter if I dismiss it or not? Do you think that unless I pat you on the back and say "well done" that you shouldn't share your view? Do you want and expect praise?

I would never expect anything like that from you T.


I'll wait and see if anything more comes in before I post my view. But see if this helps -- why do I not need an open line or care about opening lines for my jik chung choi?

Because, as our fist is one of our signatures, once drilled it's designed to thrust through anything and everything :D;)

[t_niehoff]

Because, as our fist is one of our signatures, once drilled it's designed to thrust through anything and everything :D;)

That's right! Well done, sir. :)

The jik chung choi destroys whatever it makes contact with, including an opponent's bridge, his body structure, etc.

[bennyvt]

not unless it is more powerfull then what ever it is trying to move.

[Xiao3 Meng4]

That's right! Well done, sir. :)

The jik chung choi destroys whatever it makes contact with, including an opponent's bridge, his body structure, etc.



not unless it is more powerfull then what ever it is trying to move.

On to lesson 2! :D

[LoneTiger108]

not unless it is more powerfull then what ever it is trying to move.

So the key is in how you drill your fistwork?

Put the knife in your hand (a heavy pair!) and start from there as there will be no room for errors!


That's right! Well done, sir.:)

Well, you have to excuse me now.

I'm going to faint :eek:

[jesper]

not unless it is more powerfull then what ever it is trying to move.

Well if it was that simple we didnt have to learn anything else then the punch now did we :D

[couch]

Well if it was that simple we didnt have to learn anything else then the punch now did we :D

Exactly. That's what Chain Punching is for - it teaches us to 'chain' our movements together. If my attack gets stopped, I've got options.

[YungChun]

We don't have Tok Sau so I can't comment.........



The purpose of Chum kiu is to teach one a method of fighting in the most economical way and be direct to the target.

The bridge is the path to your opponent. Is that what you mean????

Many people think that Chum Kiu is about making contact with a bridge (forearms) and controlling them. That way is not good for fighting and why so many misinterpreted systems of WC are pants IMO.

If your opponent doesnt allow you to make contact with his arms that method falls flat on its ass. I'd rather adopt an approach where we learn how to fight the person NOT the arms. ;)

GH


Seeking a bridge doesn't have to mean seeking an arm...

If the guy is wide open hit him--make the bridge. 'If there is no bridge make one..'--KK

Rarely, is the opponent wide open and you attack without any arm contact...

I'm not saying you mean doing this but; Striking, encountering an obstruction, and retracting from that contact in favor of chain punching IMO is questionable use of Chun tactics and not very good use of them at that.. See the Jong...

While there are times to make small disengagements to return to the line like JouSao/Da normally major disengagements/retractions from a direct obstruction (retract change lines, repeat) is considered an error in Chun or low level Chun..

This does seem to be problematic at times since most modern fighters rarely hold the line. So in these cases how much supplementary (two handed) 'control' one uses may vary..IMO.

Look, if someone says, hey that works better for me (using more two handed control) then that's fine so long as the primary goal is to break them down while/with striking.. In any case, the punch should be driven by body power not arm/shoulder power and break them down one way or another...

[Graham H]

See the Jong...
.


See what about the Jong????????????????????????????? :confused:

GH

[YungChun]

See what about the Jong????????????????????????????? :confused:

GH

What do you see and how does it relate to the subject?

[Graham H]

What do you see and how does it relate to the subject?

Considering the massive difference in opinion here I would guess that my idea of the jong is different to yours brother so no point in responding unless you wish to be more specific. ;)

GH

[YungChun]

Specific? It's pretty obvious, I mean really...

Do you see mainly chain punching in the Jong form?

How much of the form is chain punching or even punching?

[m1k3]

. its a very specific tactic to utilise your lat's and not your shoulder for power and mainly to intersect the centre line to cover the angle of the opponents punch.



Can someone explain how to use your lats to throw a punch?
Can someone explain how NOT to use your shoulder to throw a punch?

:confused::confused::confused:

To me the second is bio-mechanically impossible because your upper arm is attached to your shoulder joint and the muscles that move the upper arm reside in the shoulder.

As for the first you would need to be pulling the punch down towards the floor to get any significant power from the lats. The lats may become involved if you are pivoting the shoulders to provide power and then the lower back and hip would provide the main thrust and the lats may be involved in helping to pull the opposite shoulder backwards to provide thrust to the punching arm.

But wouldn't some styles of WC view that as breaking your own structure or over committing to the punch?

[YungChun]

Can someone explain how to use your lats to throw a punch?
Can someone explain how NOT to use your shoulder to throw a punch?

:confused::confused::confused:

To me the second is bio-mechanically impossible because your upper arm is attached to your shoulder joint and the muscles that move the upper arm reside in the shoulder.

As for the first you would need to be pulling the punch down towards the floor to get any significant power from the lats. The lats may become involved if you are pivoting the shoulders to provide power and then the lower back and hip would provide the main thrust and the lats may be involved in helping to pull the opposite shoulder backwards to provide thrust to the punching arm.

But wouldn't some styles of WC view that as breaking your own structure or over committing to the punch?

On lats: I assume this refers to the lats keeping the shoulder down, sinking the elbow, no lats don't throw the punch..

The shoulder thing isn't about the shoulder not in use, it's about the shoulder not being the main generator of power, the body is...the whole body.. When beginners punch they mainly use the shoulder (small qua) later the large qua (hips/glutes) is the main generator and the whole body all joints are as well.

[m1k3]

On lats: I assume this refers to the lats keeping the shoulder down, sinking the elbow, no lats don't throw the punch..

The shoulder thing isn't about the shoulder not in use, it's about the shoulder not being the main generator of power, the body is...the whole body.. When beginners punch they mainly use the shoulder (small qua) later the large qua (hips/glutes) is the main generator and the whole body all joints are as well.

That makes sense. Its called throwing a punch for a reason. I just wasn't sure what was meant here.

The WC terminology isn't always clear and can be very confusing.

[t_niehoff]

So the key is in how you drill your fistwork?

Put the knife in your hand (a heavy pair!) and start from there as there will be no room for errors!


Spencer, you don't get better doing X by practicing doing Y. You only get better at X by practicing doing X. That is the basis for developing skill. And that is why it is critical to know what it is you are trying to accomplish.

WCK's basic punch, the jik chung choi, is a structure breaking punch. It is like a battering ram that destroys whatever structure it strikes. So, how do you drill that? By doing that. In other words, whenever you punch that is your objective, it is what you are trying to do (not just to stick out your arm, not touch your opponent, not tap him, etc.). When you punch, you punch to destroy his structure. Only by constantly practicing trying to do that can you develop the ability to do that.

Imagine is you shot basketballs at a backboard without a hoop -- how good do you think you would get sinking baskets? A skill doesn't begin with the movement or action or technique, it begins with the objective. The movement/action is merely a way of accomplishing that objective. How"good" is your punch? You measure that by how well it accomplishes your objective; how well does it break an opponent's structure. That's the test.



Well, you have to excuse me now.

I'm going to faint :eek:

I give credit where it is due.

And, Xiao3 Meng4, YungChun, and Couch have made some excellent points on this thread too.

[YungChun]

WCK's basic punch, the jik chung choi, is a structure breaking punch. It is like a battering ram that destroys whatever structure it strikes.

{snip}

You measure that by how well it accomplishes your objective; how well does it break an opponent's structure. That's the test.


But you've said it doesn't control, yet we break structure to control.....

[t_niehoff]

But you've said it doesn't control, yet we break structure to control.....

Yes. WCK's method is to control while striking. The striking aids in that control by breaking his structure. But breaking his structure alone doesn't control him, it permits us to control him.

And let me add as an afterthought, as I pointed out to Spencer, to develop skill we must start with an objective (what it is we are trying to do). When you start with WCK's method, to control while striking, you can then easily see how the WCK punch fits into that method.

[chusauli]

Specific? It's pretty obvious, I mean really...

Do you see mainly chain punching in the Jong form?

How much of the form is chain punching or even punching?


IN Yip Man's set, there is no chain punching, but in the Gu Lao and YKS Jong sets, there are a lot of chain punches.

Striking the Jong with chain punches can be detrimental to one's hands. Often, the Jong is padded to soften it.

Hawkins once asked me to do the YKS Jong set, and he was thinking how can you hit the Jong with structure and full power with your fist?

Good observation, Jim. :)

[Graham H]

Specific? It's pretty obvious, I mean really...

Do you see mainly chain punching in the Jong form?

How much of the form is chain punching or even punching?

Chain punching in the Jong form????? Not in mine there aint mate!!!!

As for the punch.....yes.......every time Tan Sau and Jum Sau are used. In fact everything in the system trains the punch.

GH

[Graham H]

Just as a matter of interest.....how many people here see the wooden dummy as representing a human being??????

GH

[t_niehoff]

Just as a matter of interest.....how many people here see the wooden dummy as representing a human being??????

GH

Mook yan jong, wood(en) man stake/post. Or, structure of a man that is made of wood.

[k gledhill]

Specific? It's pretty obvious, I mean really...

Do you see mainly chain punching in the Jong form?

How much of the form is chain punching or even punching?

punching, a lot actually , but not as the "egg beater from hell"... constantly cycling and training the elbows to expand and contract ...attack/defense, simultaneously on multiple levels, it only takes a "little imagination" to see it and it helps to have aguy with the idea in his own head too :D...using the dummy to create ballistic displacing force in the striking attacks
iow when i meet YOUR arms they wont have the rigidity of the dummy's but Im not trying to leave the centerline. Plus the Dummy doesnt turn on its axis ;) but you will hopefully :D

the chi-sao is the same idea...punching jum v tan you tan v jum

Like GH stated once you see the tan & jum as elbow energy coupled WITH fists, you see the control is for us to master the elbows.
Elbows ,when we fight they are our slaves, when we train them, we are their slaves :D
Now who said that more eloquently ? :D

why elbows in to punch then elbows out ? stay out or come back in ..and why x the centerline ?

[YungChun]

punching, a lot actually , but not as the "egg beater from hell"... constantly cycling and training the elbows to expand and contract ...attack/defense, simultaneously on multiple levels, it only takes a "little imagination" to see it and it helps to have aguy with the idea in his own head too :D...using the dummy to create ballistic displacing force in the striking attacks
iow when i meet YOUR arms they wont have the rigidity of the dummy's but Im not trying to leave the centerline. Plus the Dummy doesnt turn on its axis ;) but you will hopefully :D

the chi-sao is the same idea...punching jum v tan you tan v jum

Like GH stated once you see the tan & jum as elbow energy coupled WITH fists, you see the control is for us to master the elbows.
Elbows ,when we fight they are our slaves, when we train them, we are their slaves :D
Now who said that more eloquently ? :D

why elbows in to punch then elbows out ? stay out or come back in ..and why x the centerline ?

Elbows to control the line while striking... OMG that is like totally new and different... :eek::rolleyes::D:cool:

[k gledhill]

Elbows to control the line while striking... OMG that is like totally new and different... :eek::rolleyes::D:cool:

once again, terminology transcends reality ;)

[k gledhill]

Elbows to control the line while striking... OMG that is like totally new and different... :eek::rolleyes::D:cool:

new idea ? not controlling, attacking.. dont assume that YOUR idea is Yip Mans..

[Graham H]

Mook yan jong, wood(en) man stake/post. Or, structure of a man that is made of wood.

You knid of missed my point T. A lot of WCK sytems view the Jong as a human being. For example the top arms represent a jab or a right cross and vice versa, the mid arm to represent a mid attack and the leg to represent a kick. This way of thinking is crazy!!!!

GH

[LSWCTN1]

Can someone explain how to use your lats to throw a punch?
Can someone explain how NOT to use your shoulder to throw a punch?

:confused::confused::confused:

To me the second is bio-mechanically impossible because your upper arm is attached to your shoulder joint and the muscles that move the upper arm reside in the shoulder.

As for the first you would need to be pulling the punch down towards the floor to get any significant power from the lats. The lats may become involved if you are pivoting the shoulders to provide power and then the lower back and hip would provide the main thrust and the lats may be involved in helping to pull the opposite shoulder backwards to provide thrust to the punching arm.

But wouldn't some styles of WC view that as breaking your own structure or over committing to the punch?

stood still, as in YJYKM, a persons whole weight can be moved with just your lats. add to that all which Yung Chun describes below and you have already developed a powerful striking platform which doesnt compromise any of your structure


On lats: I assume this refers to the lats keeping the shoulder down, sinking the elbow, no lats don't throw the punch..

The shoulder thing isn't about the shoulder not in use, it's about the shoulder not being the main generator of power, the body is...the whole body.. When beginners punch they mainly use the shoulder (small qua) later the large qua (hips/glutes) is the main generator and the whole body all joints are as well.

[t_niehoff]

You knid of missed my point T. A lot of WCK sytems view the Jong as a human being. For example the top arms represent a jab or a right cross and vice versa, the mid arm to represent a mid attack and the leg to represent a kick. This way of thinking is crazy!!!!

GH

I've been in WCK almost 30 years and never heard of any lineage/branch that teaches "the top arms represent a jab or a right cross and vice versa, the mid arm to represent a mid attack and the leg to represent a kick." Perhaps I've just been fortunate.

[t_niehoff]

new idea ? not controlling, attacking.. dont assume that YOUR idea is Yip Mans..

You should take your own advice to heart.

[Graham H]

Perhaps I've just been fortunate.

In some respects you have T. :p

[k gledhill]

You should take your own advice to heart.

:D I did...you might try it too...:D

[k gledhill]

On the subject of Lats..its the 'shoulder girdle' muscle group..pecs & lats combined in and down, with body unity etc......chi-sap takes on a more robust idea...very intense exchange , rather than absorbing energy and feeling c r a p .

[t_niehoff]

:D I did...you might try it too...:D

No you haven't. You have bought into Bayer's line of nonsense (it is all about the punch), and his propaganda used to sell HIS "idea" that this was the "true teachings" of WSL and Yip Man.

And this is ironic considering that Bayer -- as evidenced by his own videos -- doesn't even have a decent basic WCK punch.

[Graham H]

No you haven't. You have bought into Bayer's line of nonsense (it is all about the punch), and his propaganda used to sell HIS "idea" that this was the "true teachings" of WSL and Yip Man.

And this is ironic considering that Bayer -- as evidenced by his own videos -- doesn't even have a decent basic WCK punch.

I can assure you he does T. Maybe you should stop sitting there jerk**g off to videos and go and find out for yourself or are you yellow??? :D

[t_niehoff]

I can assure you he does T. Maybe you should stop sitting there jerk**g off to videos and go and find out for yourself or are you yellow??? :D

So, I guess that is a tacit admission that you agree that his videos show poor punching.

BTW, why don't you have Bayer go spar at a MMA gym with the white-belt level students and post a video of that since he apparently loves posting videos of himself? Then he can show the world that his "idea" is really sound after all? I mean, why post video after video of himself doing chi sao with stooges? Why not show that what he teaches, and takes money from people to teach, he can actually make work? Is HE yellow? Or, does he only do his tan/jum punching for health? ;)

[Graham H]

So, I guess that is a tacit admission that you agree that his videos show poor punching.

BTW, why don't you have Bayer go spar at a MMA gym with the white-belt level students and post a video of that since he apparently loves posting videos of himself? Then he can show the world that his "idea" is really sound after all? I mean, why post video after video of himself doing chi sao with stooges? Why not show that what he teaches, and takes money from people to teach, he can actually make work? Is HE yellow? Or, does he only do his tan/jum punching for health? ;)

Why don't we all go MMA? We can hold hands and comfort each other when we realize that our Kung Fu is riduculously poor and pathetic!!! :rolleyes::D

[HumbleWCGuy]

Then you should start by at least getting the spelling of my name correct. ;)

You don't deserve that level of respect.

[HumbleWCGuy]

This thread is proof positive that T. is a novice when it comes to WC application.

[LoneTiger108]

Do you see mainly chain punching in the Jong form?

How much of the form is chain punching or even punching?

I agree, we SEE no fistwork in the 108 form.

But if you believe for one second that fistwork isn't trained on the wooden man (in a safe/non-destructive way) then you have yet to be shown. This should have already been practised way before you learn the form imho, whether that's because you fighured it out yourself or not!


Spencer, you don't get better doing X by practicing doing Y. You only get better at X by practicing doing X. That is the basis for developing skill. And that is why it is critical to know what it is you are trying to accomplish.

I have to agree to disagree T ;)

If you're talking about developing attributes that contribute towards the objective, then there is nothing wrong with putting those heavy knives in your hand. Just like there's nothing wrong in developing the forearm impact strength by drilling the fistwork on the wooden man. They both help towards your objective imho.

If I was a new student and you put me infront of a live opponent and we start to punch eachother how quick do you think I would develop? And what exactly have I got to overcome to gain from the exercise?

One thing, there's no fear standing in front of a piece of wood, and I personally would have anyone drill through that first before even asking them to stand in front of a human being! But maybe that's just because that's the way I was taught?


WCK's basic punch, the jik chung choi, is a structure breaking punch. It is like a battering ram that destroys whatever structure it strikes. So, how do you drill that? By doing that. In other words, whenever you punch that is your objective, it is what you are trying to do (not just to stick out your arm, not touch your opponent, not tap him, etc.). When you punch, you punch to destroy his structure. Only by constantly practicing trying to do that can you develop the ability to do that.

Okay. Please read what I wrote above and explain how the sort of brutal approach you describe here would benefit a beginner, maybe female, who has very soft muscles, tendons and bones?

I understand your point. I always have! Practise by DOING! I get it!

But how do you get yourself (and others) to the relevant skill level to be able to just do what you're describing? Without getting injured? :D

[couch]

This thread is proof positive that T. is a novice when it comes to WC application.

Actually, this thread does the opposite for me. It's been one of the better diamond-in-the-rough threads. This is what more threads should be about instead of the usual 'my Wing Chun approach is better than yours' rammed down my throat.

[couch]

Okay. Please read what I wrote above and explain how the sort of brutal approach you describe here would benefit a beginner, maybe female, who has very soft muscles, tendons and bones?

I understand your point. I always have! Practise by DOING! I get it!

But how do you get yourself (and others) to the relevant skill level to be able to just do what you're describing? Without getting injured? :D

Let me help:

1. Headgear (facecage optional)
2. Gloves (from MMA to Pillows/Boxing if you like)
3. Mouthguard
4. Cup

Problem is what you have written: "Without getting injured." What do you consider 'getting injured' to be? Because if bruises, bust up lips, bleeding noses and seeing stars consists of 'getting injured,' martial arts is the wrong venture.

Hell, even the crappy (TIC) 'sport-based' martial arts like BJJ that have taken teh deadly strikes taken out have injuries such as sprains and strains all the time.

Knitting (*maybe) might be the only thing that has a low injury rate.

And lastly, about your "beginner, maybe female, who has very soft muscles, tendons and bones." None of those attributes have anything to do with fighting and/or self-defense. If we take Wing Chun, for example, it has a curriculum to build someone up from the ground up. So after the drills and Chi Sau, comes the Goh Sau and then the sparring.

Looking at a boxing gym, first you start with the cardio needed to perform the task, then you're introduced to punching the heavy bag, then you work the pads with a trainer, then you work with a partner - nice and light - feeding each other shots, going back and forth, etc...then you get in the ring and spar and spar and spar. Same thing...from the ground up.

Best,
CTK

[Pacman]

I've been in WCK almost 30 years and never heard of any lineage/branch that teaches "the top arms represent a jab or a right cross and vice versa, the mid arm to represent a mid attack and the leg to represent a kick." Perhaps I've just been fortunate.

if they dont represent a punch or a kick, what do they represent?

[t_niehoff]

if they dont represent a punch or a kick, what do they represent?

They represent arms and legs.

[t_niehoff]

This thread is proof positive that T. is a novice when it comes to WC application.

You are a troll. You don't train WCK. So why do you post on a WCK forum? Troll.

[t_niehoff]

I have to agree to disagree T ;)


Whether you agree or disagree is immaterial -- it is just a fact: we only get better at doing X by practicing doing X.



If you're talking about developing attributes that contribute towards the objective, then there is nothing wrong with putting those heavy knives in your hand. Just like there's nothing wrong in developing the forearm impact strength by drilling the fistwork on the wooden man. They both help towards your objective imho.


None of that "develops" those things you say it does. That's all nonsense. When you do the knife form, you are not doing the movement, using the mechanics, etc. of what you do with empty hands -- nor would it make any sense to.



If I was a new student and you put me infront of a live opponent and we start to punch eachother how quick do you think I would develop? And what exactly have I got to overcome to gain from the exercise?


You only develop the ability to break an opponent's structure via the punch by practicing that. That's what the punch is for. If you aren't doing that, then you aren't training the punch. And if your opponent isn't really trying to hit you, you aren't learning how to deal with a punch. Then, it is all fantasy bullsh1t, my pretend punch versus your pretend defense.



One thing, there's no fear standing in front of a piece of wood, and I personally would have anyone drill through that first before even asking them to stand in front of a human being! But maybe that's just because that's the way I was taught?


Then you were taught poorly.



Okay. Please read what I wrote above and explain how the sort of brutal approach you describe here would benefit a beginner, maybe female, who has very soft muscles, tendons and bones?

I understand your point. I always have! Practise by DOING! I get it!

But how do you get yourself (and others) to the relevant skill level to be able to just do what you're describing? Without getting injured? :D

Every time I punch, EVERY TIME (in chi sao, in sparring, whenever), when I punch, it is to break my opponent's structure. The punch isn't sticking your arm out in the air -- it is to DO something, and if you don't practice DOING it, you won't be able to do it. If you punch without doing that, you are training to fail. Period.

If someone doesn't want to train that way, then don't. But you will forever suck because you won't be doing what you need to do to develop skill. We're learning a martial art for goodness sake, it is a CONTACT SPORT, like rugby.

[k gledhill]

man in a glass booth time ..wheres the volume ?:D

[Graham H]

They represent arms and legs.

Explain?

GH

[t_niehoff]

man in a glass booth time ..wheres the volume ?:D

Look, it's rather simple . . . you can do what Bayer does, all arm "punches" that really don't hit anything or do anything to an opponent . . . and get really "good" at pretend punching (I will punch the air or tap you but just imagine, if you will, what would happen if I really did hit you!) or you can practice actually punching someone, seeing form and hitting form, seeing shadow and hitting shadow, and destroying anything you hit, practicing hitting with your body structure instead of your arm -- in other words, actually using the WCK punch.

[t_niehoff]

Explain?

GH

The dummy arms and leg represent our opponent's limbs, not specific actions or attacks they are making with the limbs.

[k gledhill]

Look, it's rather simple . . . you can do what Bayer does, all arm "punches" that really don't hit anything or do anything to an opponent . . . and get really "good" at pretend punching (I will punch the air or tap you but just imagine, if you will, what would happen if I really did hit you!) or you can practice actually punching someone, seeing form and hitting form, seeing shadow and hitting shadow, and destroying anything you hit, practicing hitting with your body structure instead of your arm -- in other words, actually using the WCK punch.


It's time for words to stop, you simply don't understand whats being developed....you can waffle on about whatever you seem to 'see', but until YOU stand in front of PB and exchange 'ideas' you wont understand. Its not something you see, like jum sao energy, you dont see it in the SLT form as its being performed, or energy in general, we see shapes and equate similar ideas we have to them....not.:D

It takes a little shift in your imagination...I got to a level of training under a direct student of YM that left me looking for answers that WSL had given PB...those answers opened up a whole new view of the system...one that you havent seen yet.

I might suggest as a fellow family member, who actually wants your VT to improve , to visit him in Germany...if your serious about VT .

I have been around and seen a lot....why would I drop it all for PB idea ?

[Xiao3 Meng4]

Another personality cult in the making, I see. :p

[k gledhill]

Another personality cult in the making, I see. :p

technique cult....PB isnt marketing himself ;)

[martyg]

technique cult....PB isnt marketing himself ;)

Lol, with people like you why would he have to? ;) Though I don't see how statements like "but until YOU stand in front of PB", "...looking for answers that WSL had given PB", "to visit him in Germany...if your serious about VT ", and "why would I drop it all for PB idea" (and that's just in one posting) are anything but promoting Philipp Bayer. Unless PB is a technique? Perfect Bong? Praying Buddha?

[k gledhill]

Lol, with people like you why would he have to? ;) Though I don't see how statements like "but until YOU stand in front of PB", "...looking for answers that WSL had given PB", "to visit him in Germany...if your serious about VT ", and "why would I drop it all for PB idea" (and that's just in one posting) are anything but promoting Philipp Bayer. Unless PB is a technique? Perfect Bong? Praying Buddha?

You might try too, your arrogance in replies is becoming regular...;)

[Xiao3 Meng4]

technique cult....PB isnt marketing himself ;)

A cult's a cult. 'Nuff said.

Is Ad Hominem abuse and insulting critics a part of your cult training too, or does that come from your own personality disorder?

[martyg]

You might try too, your arrogance in replies is becoming regular...;)

LOL, I might try what? Who am I promoting? You were promoting PB, and it was coming off like a cult. Plain and simple. Please show me where I've ever deferred to Robert in my recent posts, name dropped him, acted as a travel agent telling people they have to go see him if they're serious, told people "you simply don't understand whats being developed", including in my previous replies to your "one proper way" garbage? I'm the guy who started the Friendship seminars with Rene exactly to combat that kind of mentality, and actively promotes understanding the way different people and linneages do things differently. Robert's my sifu, not my borg king. I could care less if people go to see him, or do things the way he does things, or even how I do things. If they want to know, they'll come and see him, me, or any of my brothers - we're all perfectly capable. What an appalingly weak and arrogant attempt at a comeback on your part. Or are you confusing my recent joking with Jim with one of your standard commentary? Ironically, the only arrogance has been dripping from your posts and several other people's here. You and them go play that game, you're all wonderful at it. Leave the sane conversations to the rest of us.

[martyg]

A cult's a cult. 'Nuff said.

Is Ad Hominem abuse and insulting critics a part of your cult training too, or does that come from your own personality disorder?

Careful, he may go all Tom Cruise on you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=374are79zis

Hahaha!

[k gledhill]

LOL, I might try what? Who am I promoting? You were promoting PB, and it was coming off like a cult. Plain and simple. Please show me where I've ever deferred to Robert in my recent posts, name dropped him, acted as a travel agent telling people they have to go see him if they're serious, told people "you simply don't understand whats being developed", including in my previous replies to your "one proper way" garbage? I'm the guy who started the Friendship seminars with Rene exactly to combat that kind of mentality, and actively promotes understanding the way different people and linneages do things differently. Robert's my sifu, not my borg king. I could care less if people go to see him, or do things the way he does things, or even how I do things. If they want to know, they'll come and see him, me, or any of my brothers - we're all perfectly capable. What an appalingly weak and arrogant attempt at a comeback on your part. Or are you confusing my recent joking with Jim with one of your standard commentary? Ironically, the only arrogance has been dripping from your posts and several other people's here. You and them go play that game, you're all wonderful at it. Leave the sane conversations to the rest of us.


Whatever, I really could care less on your input....:D

[t_niehoff]

Whatever, I really could care less on your input....:D

You just don't want to accept that what Bayer is doing is nothing special or unique, it is ONE part of WCK, and a rather small part. He has just, for his own personal reasons, made that the end-all-be-all of his teaching.

And, as I have explained, Bayer for all his focus on punching, has a really poor punch. He doesn't even grasp the main objective of the WCK punch: to destroy the opponent's structure. He trains his punch to be weak, and it is weak (that's why he keeps punching, because the first one doesn't destroy anything!).

[shawchemical]

You just don't want to accept that what Bayer is doing is nothing special or unique, it is ONE part of WCK, and a rather small part. He has just, for his own personal reasons, made that the end-all-be-all of his teaching.

And, as I have explained, Bayer for all his focus on punching, has a really poor punch. He doesn't even grasp the main objective of the WCK punch: to destroy the opponent's structure. He trains his punch to be weak, and it is weak (that's why he keeps punching, because the first one doesn't destroy anything!).

The purpose of the punch is NOT to destroy the man's structure. It is to knock him out, or injure him so that he may not continue.

YOu seem to believe this cra/p about attached fighting bullsh.it and can not grasp the fundamentals of any fighting.

Hit the man until he falls down. If he gets up, rinse and repeat.

The punch is NOT about destroying structure, that much is circumstantial and secondary to the true purpose or the punch, hit the man .

[LSWCTN1]

Jeez, early 80's it sounds like...!

I'm not sure if I'm born yet :rolleyes:

[LoneTiger108]

Problem is what you have written: "Without getting injured." What do you consider 'getting injured' to be? Because if bruises, bust up lips, bleeding noses and seeing stars consists of 'getting injured,' martial arts is the wrong venture.

Hell, even the crappy (TIC) 'sport-based' martial arts like BJJ that have taken teh deadly strikes taken out have injuries such as sprains and strains all the time.

Knitting (*maybe) might be the only thing that has a low injury rate.


I was trained to NOT get injured as I believe that any injury that hinders training, which could be mainly sprains and strains to be fair, is an injury you should have avoided.

If you believe that injuries should be an integral part of your training, I'd say you should stick to BJJ as WCK is designed to build a persons structure without injury. This is/was why simple exercises like chisau and forms were introduced in the first place. Therapy the body first. Prepare it properly before launching into this 'sporting' method you talk of (which WCK defi nitely is not!)


And lastly, about your "beginner, maybe female, who has very soft muscles, tendons and bones." None of those attributes have anything to do with fighting and/or self-defense.

Sorry I don't understand what you mean here, as you go on to describe what I just have (building from the base etc) What I'm saying is that a beginner comes as a blank canvas and the harder training that is required at a later stage in training actually depends on the condition of your skin, tendons and bones. Note, I don't mention MUSCLE! ;)

[LoneTiger108]

Whether you agree or disagree is immaterial -- it is just a fact: we only get better at doing X by practicing doing X.

I disagree in part T, as I've already said. Yes punching eachother to break structure is great, but there is preparation to complete beforehand or all you will be dealing with are bruised arms, knuckles, egos and bloody noses.


None of that "develops" those things you say it does. That's all nonsense. When you do the knife form, you are not doing the movement, using the mechanics, etc. of what you do with empty hands -- nor would it make any sense to.

Seriously? You know my take on your opinion here dude. You talk from lack of weaponry experience imho. Perhaps taught by someone who wants you to separate the ideals, for fear of you realizing they do not know what they're talking about when they put a knife in their hand :(


Then you were taught poorly.

And of course, you were taught well? :rolleyes:


If someone doesn't want to train that way, then don't. But you will forever suck because you won't be doing what you need to do to develop skill. We're learning a martial art for goodness sake, it is a CONTACT SPORT, like rugby.

Now you want to pigeon hole WCK again as a Contact Sport LIKE RUGBY??!! :eek::confused:

Sorry man, WCK is an ART. An Art in continual development. If only jocks like you understood that, it would make the world a more harmonious place ;) :)

[t_niehoff]

The purpose of the punch is NOT to destroy the man's structure. It is to knock him out, or injure him so that he may not continue.


No, that is what boxers and kickboxers are trying to do. All you have to do is look at the WCK punch and see that the mechanics doesn't support that type of power. Take the punch from the forms (bring fist into chest, thrust out along the centerline, etc.) -- do you really think that will KO anyone?

And if you look at the training boxers and kickboxers do, it focuses on developing KO type power (not structure breaking power).

What is always ironic is that the WCK guys who talk about KOing and injuring their opponent via punching can never do it!



YOu seem to believe this cra/p about attached fighting bullsh.it and can not grasp the fundamentals of any fighting.


I believe it because that is the approach/method of WCK. I am sorry that you never learned it.



Hit the man until he falls down. If he gets up, rinse and repeat.


Oh, that's great . . . and do you think he will just let you hit him at will? How do you set up your strikes, how do you deal with what he is trying to do (hit you, control you, etc.)?

WCK provides an organized approach to all of that, with your control being your defense, your control setting up your strikes, etc. WCK "comes with" a battle plan.



The punch is NOT about destroying structure, that much is circumstantial and secondary to the true purpose or the punch, hit the man .

If you hit someone and don't break their structure, they can hit you back -- with a broken structure, they not only don't have an offense, but don't have a defense.

Charging in with punches, trying to just "hit the guy" is easy to deal with. That is caveman WCK, a low level expression of the art. You don't need chi sao -- our signature drill -- to practice doing that.

[t_niehoff]

I disagree in part T, as I've already said. Yes punching eachother to break structure is great, but there is preparation to complete beforehand or all you will be dealing with are bruised arms, knuckles, egos and bloody noses.


WTF are you talking about?



Seriously? You know my take on your opinion here dude. You talk from lack of weaponry experience imho. Perhaps taught by someone who wants you to separate the ideals, for fear of you realizing they do not know what they're talking about when they put a knife in their hand :(


That's all bullsh1t. Weapons and empty-hand are two different animals. You can be great at weapons and have no empty hand skill, and you can be great at empty hand and have no weapon skill. Skill in one doesn't in any way transfer to the other. This is another myth.



And of course, you were taught well? :rolleyes:


No, I was taught like every other WCK guy -- poorly. Practicing doing X to develop Y is by definition poor training, although it is standard for TCMAs.



Now you want to pigeon hole WCK again as a Contact Sport LIKE RUGBY??!! :eek::confused:

Sorry man, WCK is an ART. An Art in continual development. If only jocks like you understood that, it would make the world a more harmonious place ;) :)

My point is that WCK is fighting, and fighting is a contact activity, like rugby. It's not some intellectual, academic, conceptually-based practice. It is fighting. Like boxing, like wrestling, etc. It's not pigeon-holing it, it is merely seeing it for what it is. The forms, the drills (chi sao, etc.), the dummy, the weapons, NONE of that is WCK. That is merely the curriculum of WCK. WCK is the activity, it is fighting using WCK tools. It is playing the game.

[LoneTiger108]

WTF are you talking about?

I was repeating myself T. Got no problem with using fistwork to break structure, but the key is how to train/drill said fistwork FIRST. And FWIW if you're only ever training breaking structure by breaking structure with EVERY fist you throw and (lord forbid!) you aint making any contact or being defended, I personally think you are wasting a lot of energy. A no no from where I'm coming from...


That's all bullsh1t. Weapons and empty-hand are two different animals. You can be great at weapons and have no empty hand skill, and you can be great at empty hand and have no weapon skill. Skill in one doesn't in any way transfer to the other. This is another myth.

No. It's not a myth. Just something that needs proper insight and tuition. I don't think you would agree with me if we just spent time physically in the same room with eachother for a very short while! I don't think I could take a full day of this type of mind set! Your opinion is not shared by everybody here T, and I used to think the way you do too ;) Then I met a Sifu that knew his weaponry and understood it's place in Martial Arts training.


No, I was taught like every other WCK guy -- poorly. Practicing doing X to develop Y is by definition poor training, although it is standard for TCMAs.

As I've said, it's the reasoning behind some of the traditional mess that needs to be learnt first hand with a skilled Sifu. You admit that this has not happened, or did not happen until you met Robert Chu. I don't think Robert could even talk with my Sifu as he would be 'too proud' to answer some simple questions.


My point is that WCK is fighting, and fighting is a contact activity, like rugby. It's not some intellectual, academic, conceptually-based practice. It is fighting. Like boxing, like wrestling, etc. It's not pigeon-holing it, it is merely seeing it for what it is. The forms, the drills (chi sao, etc.), the dummy, the weapons, NONE of that is WCK. That is merely the curriculum of WCK. WCK is the activity, it is fighting using WCK tools. It is playing the game.

This quote is pure gold dust :rolleyes:

For someone that promotes WCK as a 'curricullum' you sure did just trample all over your own a$$! The curricullum IS everything you mention. It's what binds us all together.

I do feel that this is only coming from you're interpretation of the kuit you hold. That's the kuit that's influencing your WCK to be viewed as an activity, or game. That Hints & Tips stuff?!

Part timers in HK 'play' kung fu T. Us Londoners like to actually DO kung fu seriously! :D WCK is definitely NOT a game imho. More evidence that you may have neither the curricullum, method or tools to truly understand what WCK is imho.

[t_niehoff]

I was repeating myself T. Got no problem with using fistwork to break structure, but the key is how to train/drill said fistwork FIRST. And FWIW if you're only ever training breaking structure by breaking structure with EVERY fist you throw and (lord forbid!) you aint making any contact or being defended, I personally think you are wasting a lot of energy. A no no from where I'm coming from...


What are you talking about? How do you train to break an opponent's structure with your punch? By doing it. There is no other way. You are not going to develop that skill by not practicing the skill.

The WCK punch doesn't miss. Go back to the thread about the WCK operating sysytem.



No. It's not a myth. Just something that needs proper insight and tuition. I don't think you would agree with me if we just spent time physically in the same room with eachother for a very short while! I don't think I could take a full day of this type of mind set! Your opinion is not shared by everybody here T, and I used to think the way you do too ;) Then I met a Sifu that knew his weaponry and understood it's place in Martial Arts training.


Sorry, but it is bunk. I don't care if my opinion is shared by everybody here. People can convince themselves of all sorts of nonsense.



As I've said, it's the reasoning behind some of the traditional mess that needs to be learnt first hand with a skilled Sifu. You admit that this has not happened, or did not happen until you met Robert Chu. I don't think Robert could even talk with my Sifu as he would be 'too proud' to answer some simple questions.


This has nothing to do with anyone's sifu. Everyone talks about their "skilled sifu" -- skilled sifu that can't hold their own against white-belt level MMA fighters. But they KNOW. ;)



This quote is pure gold dust :rolleyes:

For someone that promotes WCK as a 'curricullum' you sure did just trample all over your own a$$! The curricullum IS everything you mention. It's what binds us all together.


The curriculum provides us the method and the tools, it doesn't -- and can't -- teach you how to use it. You only learn to use it by and through using it: you learn to box by boxing. Boxing isn't the exercises, the tools, it isn't the drills, etc. It is fighting (using boxing's method and tools).



I do feel that this is only coming from you're interpretation of the kuit you hold. That's the kuit that's influencing your WCK to be viewed as an activity, or game. That Hints & Tips stuff?!

Part timers in HK 'play' kung fu T. Us Londoners like to actually DO kung fu seriously! :D WCK is definitely NOT a game imho. More evidence that you may have neither the curricullum, method or tools to truly understand what WCK is imho.

The "game" refers to the activity itself (you are actually doing the activity when you play the game). Fighting with WCK (using the method and tools of WCK) is playing the game. You only get better playing the game by playing the game. It has nothing to do with "understanding" -- only theoretical nonfighters talk that way. If you are DOING WCK, you are fighting. DOING is not about understanding or knowledge or concepts or principles -- it is about PERFORMANCE.

[LoneTiger108]

What are you talking about? How do you train to break an opponent's structure with your punch? By doing it. There is no other way. You are not going to develop that skill by not practicing the skill.

:rolleyes: yaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnn

Obviusly a waste of my breath.


The WCK punch doesn't miss.

IDEALLY, yes! But I think you're living in Fantasy Fu land if you think you can land every strike against a skilled WCK practitioner.


Everyone talks about their "skilled sifu" -- skilled sifu that can't hold their own against white-belt level MMA fighters. But they KNOW. ;)

Okay. Put an average BJJ player in fron of me with a pair of knives and we will see who ****es themselves first! :rolleyes: Your argument is pointless and does nothing but promote MMA attitude. Train everything. Learn NOTHING! :eek:


If you are DOING WCK, you are fighting. DOING is not about understanding or knowledge or concepts or principles -- it is about PERFORMANCE.

No, you don't have to fight to do WCK. I know that's hard for you to understand, but there it is. Can I ask who taught you that? Because they were wrong.

[Xiao3 Meng4]

IDEALLY, yes! But I think you're living in Fantasy Fu land if you think you can land every strike against a skilled WCK practitioner.


Moy Yat Chops (http://www.wingchunpedia.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=WCP.KuenKuit#Specific11)



1. When you should hit-hit
2. When you shouldn't hit-don't
3. Don't when you can't and don't when you mustn't.

[LoneTiger108]

Moy Yat Chops (http://www.wingchunpedia.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=WCP.KuenKuit#Specific11)

Interesting. But your point? It's a great piece of advice, but what I'm saying is not everyone will have that ability or intent, especially beginners.

It's funny that within all of Moy Yats chops it also states " beginners must not use strength" which supports another point I was trying to say to T. All this force against force training, and dangerous intent is not productive and can actually be very detrimental to the beginner.

Ideals for WCK are fine. But we are all human, so this punch that you think should hit doesn't. Now you're over-comitted and eaten by a little snake :D

[chusauli]

Seriously? You know my take on your opinion here dude. You talk from lack of weaponry experience imho. Perhaps taught by someone who wants you to separate the ideals, for fear of you realizing they do not know what they're talking about when they put a knife in their hand :(

And:

I don't think Robert could even talk with my Sifu as he would be 'too proud' to answer some simple questions.



Spencer,

I consider that a passive aggressive swipe at me. Keep your conversation between you and Terence.

Also, what makes you think I'm "too proud" to talk to anyone, including your Sifu? He's a "Wah Kiu", as I am. I'm sure we'd have a lot to chat about. This assumption is something you are pulling out of your arse. I am a balanced person, I can have conversation with anyone I please.

Only ones I don't do well with are a-holes, passive- aggressive/bi-polar, and mentally unbalanced, and those that need psychiatric medication.

[m1k3]

What about those that simply enjoy psychiatric medicine? :D

[Xiao3 Meng4]

Interesting. But your point? It's a great piece of advice, but what I'm saying is not everyone will have that ability or intent, especially beginners.

Ideals for WCK are fine. But we are all human, so this punch that you think should hit doesn't. Now you're over-comitted and eaten by a little snake :D


Regarding your point, I agree that it can happen AND that Moy Yat warns about it when he says "don't when you mustn't."

Regarding my point, I'm saying that it's a trainable concept similar to "position before submission" (I use the term because it effectively illustrates the idea.)

As I see it, if one does not have control/initiative over an opponent's timing and structure/balance, one should be wary of hitting because there is always the chance that your point above will come true.

Likewise, if the opponent has control/initiative, hitting them is not the first priority; such hits are rarely effective (read "hail mary" or "low percentage.") Rather, the priority is to find an opportunity to regain control by at least getting to a neutral point of control/initiative first. Preferably while not getting hit, because:

Hitting when one has control/initiative means hitting whilst one has the upper hand. This is the "when you should hit-hit" time.

As an example, consider falling. Let's say you and I are sparring (no head shots) and you manage to make me stumble, perhaps even fall. Now, my mind is very much on regaining my balance or if unable to do so, absorbing the fall as best I can. Suppose that, AS I'm falling, you hit me with a decent (structured) basic WCK punch to the head (you're not being mean - for the sake of the example, I changed the rules :) )

This punch of yours will be vastly more effective than if you were ever to hit me in the head while I was structured for the "boxing" zone (expecting to get hit, so to speak) because, in the moment when my mind is on structuring for regaining my balance or falling safely, it is NOT on structuring for safely taking a punch. As such, being structured while hitting someone who is unstructured is one of the things to train for.

That said, it sometimes happens that we feel we have the opportunity to land something, in both an attached (sticking) and unattached (kickboxing) state, when we really can't. Happens to everyone. You know who it happens less to, though? People who have trained against resisting partners and who have the control/initiative before hitting.



It's funny that within all of Moy Yats chops it also states " beginners must not use strength" which supports another point I was trying to say to T. All this force against force training, and dangerous intent is not productive and can actually be very detrimental to the beginner.


My understanding of this Kuit comes from watching beginners "jamming" against each other AND THEN muscling their way through, or beginners being pulled by Lop or having their arms dropped by Lan and resisting instead of capitalizing on their opponent's commitment. It's not so much about being gentle with one another (although respect should always be maintained during training) as it is about not falling into technical traps or bad habits.

I therefore feel that beginners should quickly have access to simple sparring drills/games; and that it is up to the instructor to make sure they are on a track which makes their training progressively more real (and doesn't start from way off in left field, such as tightrope walking.)

Did you sign a waiver of liability form when you started training? If you teach, do you require your students to sign one?

[t_niehoff]

^ Good post.

[chusauli]

"Cho Hok, Mo Yung Lik"

"In the beginning, don't use strength." - It doesn't exactly mean "Beginners", but at the "beginning of learning".

Its a subtle distinction that can guide you with everything. For example, if for the first time using a bow and arrow, don't just muscle it, but look for the correct grip, posture, etc.

That's how I interpret the Kuen Kuit.

[Knifefighter]

No. It's not a myth. Just something that needs proper insight and tuition. I don't think you would agree with me if we just spent time physically in the same room with eachother for a very short while! I don't think I could take a full day of this type of mind set! Your opinion is not shared by everybody here T, and I used to think the way you do too ;) Then I met a Sifu that knew his weaponry and understood it's place in Martial Arts training.

I could prove to you in less than 3 minutes total that weapons fighting and unarmed fighting are completely different.

[free2flow]

I could prove to you in less than 3 minutes total that weapons fighting and unarmed fighting are completely different.

Could you please describe a little bit and if you don’t mind give one specific example in what way they are “completely different”? I also believe they are different, though not completely. Are you also implying that, for instance in my case, whatever I learn in WC will not be useful when I do FMA? My intention here is not to start an argument, we got a lot of it here already in 90% of the threads. I’m really just trying to get the bigger picture and understand what you are trying to convey and educate myself.

Thanks in advance.

[anerlich]

Okay. Put an average BJJ player in fron of me with a pair of knives and we will see who ****es themselves first!

A number of the "average BJJ players" I train with have black belts in Arnis. The "average BJJ player" Knifefighter is not exactly untrained in weaponry either.

Though such an encounter will never happen and yours is a straw man argument, you'd want to wear a daiper, maybe two, just to be safe should it ever occur.

Somehow you seem to be trying to argue that cross trainers train everything but learn nothing, but at the same time don't train in what you regard as a sufficiently broad range of skills.

You seem to want to have it both ways, but sorry, you can't have either.

[martyg]

Only ones I don't do well with are a-holes, passive- aggressive/bi-polar, and mentally unbalanced, and those that need psychiatric medication.

LOL, that leaves out half the people on this discussion board. ;)



"Cho Hok, Mo Yung Lik"

"In the beginning, don't use strength." - It doesn't exactly mean "Beginners", but at the "beginning of learning".

Its a subtle distinction that can guide you with everything. For example, if for the first time using a bow and arrow, don't just muscle it, but look for the correct grip, posture, etc.

That's how I interpret the Kuen Kuit.

I would think "In the beginning" is also a pretty generic prhasing, which can lend itself to a multiple levels/depth of understanding (as with most Kuen Kuit) beyond the beginning of learning part. "In the beginning don't use strength" could also refer to not cutting yourself off from your opponent's energy when establishing the kiu for instance, i.e. the "beginning" of interaction.

[sihing]

Regarding your point, I agree that it can happen AND that Moy Yat warns about it when he says "don't when you mustn't."

Regarding my point, I'm saying that it's a trainable concept similar to "position before submission" (I use the term because it effectively illustrates the idea.)

As I see it, if one does not have control/initiative over an opponent's timing and structure/balance, one should be wary of hitting because there is always the chance that your point above will come true.

Likewise, if the opponent has control/initiative, hitting them is not the first priority; such hits are rarely effective (read "hail mary" or "low percentage.") Rather, the priority is to find an opportunity to regain control by at least getting to a neutral point of control/initiative first. Preferably while not getting hit, because:

Hitting when one has control/initiative means hitting whilst one has the upper hand. This is the "when you should hit-hit" time.

As an example, consider falling. Let's say you and I are sparring (no head shots) and you manage to make me stumble, perhaps even fall. Now, my mind is very much on regaining my balance or if unable to do so, absorbing the fall as best I can. Suppose that, AS I'm falling, you hit me with a decent (structured) basic WCK punch to the head (you're not being mean - for the sake of the example, I changed the rules :) )

This punch of yours will be vastly more effective than if you were ever to hit me in the head while I was structured for the "boxing" zone (expecting to get hit, so to speak) because, in the moment when my mind is on structuring for regaining my balance or falling safely, it is NOT on structuring for safely taking a punch. As such, being structured while hitting someone who is unstructured is one of the things to train for.

That said, it sometimes happens that we feel we have the opportunity to land something, in both an attached (sticking) and unattached (kickboxing) state, when we really can't. Happens to everyone. You know who it happens less to, though? People who have trained against resisting partners and who have the control/initiative before hitting.



My understanding of this Kuit comes from watching beginners "jamming" against each other AND THEN muscling their way through, or beginners being pulled by Lop or having their arms dropped by Lan and resisting instead of capitalizing on their opponent's commitment. It's not so much about being gentle with one another (although respect should always be maintained during training) as it is about not falling into technical traps or bad habits.

I therefore feel that beginners should quickly have access to simple sparring drills/games; and that it is up to the instructor to make sure they are on a track which makes their training progressively more real (and doesn't start from way off in left field, such as tightrope walking.)

Did you sign a waiver of liability form when you started training? If you teach, do you require your students to sign one?


That's a good post:)

We have attachment and prolonged contact drills in VT for a couple of reasons: 1) pressure is needed to develop structure, sensitivity, self awareness, opponent awareness, 2)there is a high chance of attachment during inclose fighting exchanges, therefore one needs to be comfortable in that environment and know what to do.

Now in my experience, it is much harder to deal with someone pressuring my body than no pressure on my body. If he's throwing boxing punches at me, I can always turn away and run, as that type of attack is non controlling, one is relying on the speed of the delivery and quick entry to succeed, that's why boxers retire at a young age, they lose these abilities physically because it's based on speed, and a high degree of timing. So for me I'd rather deal with a boxer than a wrestler.

If you can learn a method that controls while striking (which has to be done at a closer range, you can't control someone from kicking range per say), it allows you a easier time to hit, since you have momentary control. Of course this is all reliant on 2 things, your skills vs. the skills of your opponent, if his is higher than yours it doesn't matter what you do, your chances of success are less, and visa versa. But one has to start somewhere, you can't learn how to strike effectively if you are always practicing takedowns, and you can't learn to takedown if your always punching at him, learn one method well, make it your base, then add on later if you choose (unless you have unlimited training time like a semi pro or pro, talking average joe interest and time commitment here).

I choose to learn the controlling striking method as I'm not getting any younger, and it is a surprising tactic, most are not used to it being applied upon them. The cool thing is, you can still function in a less attached manner if that is your wish or preference. The structure is still there and developed, you just choose less connection in your application, this works well if you are faster and more skilled than your opponent, you just keep on hitting, if your not faster the control factor will automatically kick in as a back up to slow your opponent down a bit and allow easier hitting for you.

Our method of attachment is different from a wrestlers though, as we are not takedown specialists. Also, attachment can be at bridge on bridge contact or body on center axis contact (you hit with no obstructions, therefore you enter into his center axis even more as you continue hitting).

Question? Why chi sau, laap sau, dan chi, pak drill, practice in close, and not attach (even for a bit) in fighting??

James

[t_niehoff]

Question? Why chi sau, laap sau, dan chi, pak drill, practice in close, and not attach (even for a bit) in fighting??


Yes, exactly. And why think that those sorts of drills will be of any use if what you want to do is charge in with strikes or kickbox?

Consider the chi gerk, not just the drill (which is unique to Yip Man) but the method -- using the legs/horse to disrupt an opponent's base, to prevent his movement, etc -- which is a basic part of the WCK core curriculum (it is in YM, YKS, Gu Lao, Pan Nam, etc.). To use the chi gerk methods, you need to be close, very close (almost body to body in many cases) before you can even think about using them. It is an attached, contact method. And it is to break an opponent's structure so that we can control him.

[shawchemical]

No, that is what boxers and kickboxers are trying to do. All you have to do is look at the WCK punch and see that the mechanics doesn't support that type of power. Take the punch from the forms (bring fist into chest, thrust out along the centerline, etc.) -- do you really think that will KO anyone?

And if you look at the training boxers and kickboxers do, it focuses on developing KO type power (not structure breaking power).

What is always ironic is that the WCK guys who talk about KOing and injuring their opponent via punching can never do it!



I believe it because that is the approach/method of WCK. I am sorry that you never learned it.



Oh, that's great . . . and do you think he will just let you hit him at will? How do you set up your strikes, how do you deal with what he is trying to do (hit you, control you, etc.)?

WCK provides an organized approach to all of that, with your control being your defense, your control setting up your strikes, etc. WCK "comes with" a battle plan.



If you hit someone and don't break their structure, they can hit you back -- with a broken structure, they not only don't have an offense, but don't have a defense.

Charging in with punches, trying to just "hit the guy" is easy to deal with. That is caveman WCK, a low level expression of the art. You don't need chi sao -- our signature drill -- to practice doing that.


Point in fact, that you are an incoherent moron without the intellectual capability to see reality through your own bullsh.it clouded vision.

[t_niehoff]

Point in fact, that you are an incoherent moron without the intellectual capability to see reality through your own bullsh.it clouded vision.

To translate: I can't really offer anything substantive to argue so I will just resort to name-calling.

[YungChun]

It's funny that within all of Moy Yats chops it also states " beginners must not use strength" which supports another point I was trying to say to T. All this force against force training, and dangerous intent is not productive and can actually be very detrimental to the beginner.


It's detrimental period...but it's really about energy--speed/power.

In the beginning, (early classical training), especially ChiSao--the amount of energy and force one uses will very simply be a limiting factor.. The bottom line on this is seen if you look at weaker students Vs. stronger students and see how they develop in ChiSao.. Even with good intentions the stronger person will rely on strength while the weaker person simply does not have that option.

Since the training emphasizes timing and position over power and speed the results you get from the training, the skill you develop will be a product of your focus... So the more you rely on strength the more you will have to rely on it later.

I tell, especially beginning students to try not to use more than 50% of their total power... The problem then becomes a contest between ego and control. The bigger the ego, the more power will be needed and then less will be their gung-fu... Such is life.

[shawchemical]

To translate: I can't really offer anything substantive to argue so I will just resort to name-calling.

Guess it's ok for you to do it, but you throw a tantrum when it happens back.

As for the substantive measure, if you are standing still and punching someone, it's going to be pretty hard to KO them regardless of how you hit them.

The power comes from the waist and from movement, especially in VTK. Your analogy is incorrect, and thus your point moot. The goal of VTK is to KO the man. It is not to punch to break structure. This idea would encourage hand chasing nonsense, and is thus wrong. Regardless of what the punch actually achieves with reference to forcing your opponent to adjust to your movement, if there is no need to deal with their arms to hit them, why would you complicate matters by trying first to "punch" to break structure rather than just hitting and hurting them???
The dynamics of the VTK punch are similar to an uppercut in boxing. It moves upwards and forwards, driving the head upwards and backwards. Yes this breaks the opponent's desired structure, however it is not the primary goal but a consequential result.

The goal is to hit the man, resulting in an unfavourable situation for them.

[YungChun]

Guess it's ok for you to do it, but you throw a tantrum when it happens back.


He wasn't talking about himself there..he was "translating" what you wrote..T the attorney always brings an actual stated POV, not just a drive-by insult as many others do here...

[shawchemical]

He wasn't talking about himself there..he was "translating" what you wrote..T the attorney always brings an actual stated POV, not just a drive-by insult as many others do here...

No he doesn't and that's exactly my point.

[t_niehoff]

As for the substantive measure, if you are standing still and punching someone, it's going to be pretty hard to KO them regardless of how you hit them.


Boxers do it all the time.



The power comes from the waist and from movement, especially in VTK.


No. The first form shows us how the punch is done, no stepping, no rotation, using the whole body as a hammer to drive the nail (arm).



Your analogy is incorrect, and thus your point moot. The goal of VTK is to KO the man.


The ultimate goal is to finish your opponent, but there is a method (strategic approach) to getting to that point.



It is not to punch to break structure. This idea would encourage hand chasing nonsense, and is thus wrong. Regardless of what the punch actually achieves with reference to forcing your opponent to adjust to your movement, if there is no need to deal with their arms to hit them, why would you complicate matters by trying first to "punch" to break structure rather than just hitting and hurting them??? ]


Using the punch to destroy structure doesn't encourage "hand chasing" -- why would it? You don't seem to understand what I am talking when referring to breaking structure -- I mean their body structure (their ability to use their body effectively). Why hit to break structure rather than just hurt them? Because I can hurt them and if they retain body structure they can retaliate, defend, etc. But, if you break their structure, then they can't retaliate, defend, etc. They must first regain structure,so they are always a step behind you. With their structure broken, and me in control, then I can safely and more effectively put on the hurt.



The dynamics of the VTK punch are similar to an uppercut in boxing. It moves upwards and forwards, driving the head upwards and backwards. Yes this breaks the opponent's desired structure, however it is not the primary goal but a consequential result.


You think that is the "dynamics"? Look at the punch at the beginning of the forms (which show us the dynamics) -- is that similar to the uppercut in boxing? Even the name of the punch, jik chung choi, straight thrusting punch, tells you the "dynamics": it is straight (not upwards) and it is thrusting (not like an uppercut).



The goal is to hit the man, resulting in an unfavourable situation for them.

Of course. But just hitting him doesn't necessarily have that result. AND you want to make certain that you are safe before, during, and after striking him. That is the whole point behind controlling while striking, and why using the punch to break structure is an integral part to that.

[LSWCTN1]

No. The first form shows us how the punch is done, no stepping, no rotation, using the whole body as a hammer to drive the nail (arm).

are you serious? no rotation at all?

[Graham H]

No rotation????? :eek:

There is rotation of the body involved in every strike. ;)

GH

[LoneTiger108]

Spencer,

I consider that a passive aggressive swipe at me. Keep your conversation between you and Terence.

Maybe it was Robert, and maybe I just forgot who had anything to do with teaching such a great contributor to this WCK forum! :rolleyes:

Honestly, it was more of a dig at his 'previous' teachers who he claims had nothing in comparison to you. But if you want to get paranoid about that, what can I do?

It's actually quite cool how you guys seem to stick together...


Also, what makes you think I'm "too proud" to talk to anyone, including your Sifu? He's a "Wah Kiu", as I am. I'm sure we'd have a lot to chat about. This assumption is something you are pulling out of your arse. I am a balanced person, I can have conversation with anyone I please.

So, I ask you, instead of nurturing your own assumptions about my Sigung Lee Shing, why have you not just picked up the phone and introduced yourself directly to my Sifu? I have told you he is an elder of the family, the eldest still teaching in fact, but you still compare me to my Uncle Austin and have 'put down' Lee Shing on quite a few occassions on this forum since I started posting. He is aware of your background and our little spats, so I'm sure you will find any chat with him a challenge and maybe even a learning experience.

Please tell him what your approach to WCK is all about and I'm sure he will be friendly.


Only ones I don't do well with are a-holes, passive- aggressive/bi-polar, and mentally unbalanced, and those that need psychiatric medication.

Consider my misunderstood swipe at you returned to me ten-fold in this cryptic response of yours! :p

[t_niehoff]

No rotation????? :eek:

There is rotation of the body involved in every strike. ;)

GH

Do you rotate when you do the punch in the forms? No, you stand in YJKYM and punch.

People rotate because they don't have body structure, so they try to compensate with momentum.

[LoneTiger108]

Regarding your point, I agree that it can happen AND that Moy Yat warns about it when he says "don't when you mustn't."

Regarding my point, I'm saying that it's a trainable concept similar to "position before submission" (I use the term because it effectively illustrates the idea.)

I can see from your informative response that we may share similar views as to what interactive exercises in WCK should 'ideally' be focussed on. In response to the attachment and control ideas you mention, I would also say that the fistwork attack signature of WCK forces an opponent to retreat or realign themselves which sometimes offers you the time to take control, so you may not have to wait for that right time, especially if you recognize ability on your first touch.


Did you sign a waiver of liability form when you started training? If you teach, do you require your students to sign one?

Dude!? :eek: I couldn't tell you if I did! :D Why do you ask?

Honestly, I signed MORE than a waiver as some students were actively involved in Sifus businesses, but that was a while ago. There was a mutual understanding and respect between student and teacher depending on what you were there for.

Fighters were fighters. Apprentices were apprentices. Teachers were teachers. Members were simply just that!

[t_niehoff]

When you fight on the inside, you will find that your opponent will grab, hold, throw punches from all angles, shoot, etc. So, you have to have a METHOD for dealing with all that. Just trying to hit him will not accomplish anything. WCK provides a method to deal with all that: to control the opponent while striking him.

To control an opponent, unless we are much larger and stronger, requires that we first break his body structure. With his body structure broken, we make him functionally weaker, slower, less able to mount an offense or a defense, etc.

The WCK punch plays a HUGE role in that.

Ask yourself: what I must do to break an opponent's structure with my punch? You can't just punch in any way you like. You will find that you NEED to use a certain, specific mechanics to accomplish that.

The first thing you'll see is that you can't break his body structure just using localized arm muscle (it's not powerful enough). You must use your body. And the way you do that is to strike WITH your body, with your center striking his center through your arm projection. THAT is why you punch on the centerline.

That is hammer-nail, your body is the hammer, your arm the nail, and it drives into the opponent's center destroying it. It is as if your body strikes/collides with his body, only your arm is sticking out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHJJb5wmiTo

As you can see, there is no rotation in this. In fact, if you use rotation, you won't get that same effect and you won't be able to break an opponent's structure (via striking). WCK uses rotation but to destroy his structure by escorting. Boxing uses rotation to power their strikes, but they aren't concerned with breaking structure or with not having their structure broken.

The body structure that can do this requires that your weight be on the balls of your feet (not your heels or the center of your foot), it requires you NOT rotate, it requires that you are able to link your arms to your body (elbow down and in) so that you can transfer your body into your opponent, that you are very close to your opponent (it is not a long range method), etc. IOWs, the punch as it is performed in the forms.

And the WCK punch -- how we use our body structure to strike and break his body structure, is the BASIS for everything we do in WCK. That is why the punch is considered the foundation. In fact, in the old days, they used to say you could tell the quality of someone's WCK just by their punch.

The other side of the coin is that when you are on the inside, that if you do certain things, it will make it much easier for an opponent to control you. For example, if you rotate to strike, your opponent will use that movement to control you. On the inside you will very likely not be able to step to generate power. Etc. IOWs, you need to have mechanics for striking that doesn't require rotation or stepping, that works as extreme short range, etc.

However, if you don't see WCK as having anything to do with controlling an opponent or involving inside fighting, then of course, none of this will make sense to you. You will look at things from a boxer/kickboxers POV -- your strikes will use localized muscle (hence the fast hand WCK), you will rotate for striking power, you will maintain an outside range, your elbows will come outside your bodyline, etc. IOWs, you will do everything opposite to how the forms and drills of WCK teach you.

[LSWCTN1]

Do you rotate when you do the punch in the forms? No, you stand in YJKYM and punch.

People rotate because they don't have body structure, so they try to compensate with momentum.

does your arm not rotate when striking, even if your hips remain square? what about the jin choi? set. my favourite punch in fact. big power and outside fighting


When you fight on the inside, you will find that your opponent will grab, hold, throw punches from all angles, shoot, etc. So, you have to have a METHOD for dealing with all that. Just trying to hit him will not accomplish anything. WCK provides a method to deal with all that: to control the opponent while striking him.

To control an opponent, unless we are much larger and stronger, requires that we first break his body structure. With his body structure broken, we make him functionally weaker, slower, less able to mount an offense or a defense, etc.

The WCK punch plays a HUGE role in that.

Ask yourself: what I must do to break an opponent's structure with my punch? You can't just punch in any way you like. You will find that you NEED to use a certain, specific mechanics to accomplish that.

The first thing you'll see is that you can't break his body structure just using localized arm muscle (it's not powerful enough). You must use your body. And the way you do that is to strike WITH your body, with your center striking his center through your arm projection. THAT is why you punch on the centerline.

That is hammer-nail, your body is the hammer, your arm the nail, and it drives into the opponent's center destroying it. It is as if your body strikes/collides with his body, only your arm is sticking out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHJJb5wmiTo

As you can see, there is no rotation in this. In fact, if you use rotation, you won't get that same effect and you won't be able to break an opponent's structure (via striking). WCK uses rotation but to destroy his structure by escorting. Boxing uses rotation to power their strikes, but they aren't concerned with breaking structure or with not having their structure broken.

The body structure that can do this requires that your weight be on the balls of your feet (not your heels or the center of your foot), it requires you NOT rotate, it requires that you are able to link your arms to your body (elbow down and in) so that you can transfer your body into your opponent, that you are very close to your opponent (it is not a long range method), etc. IOWs, the punch as it is performed in the forms.

And the WCK punch -- how we use our body structure to strike and break his body structure, is the BASIS for everything we do in WCK. That is why the punch is considered the foundation. In fact, in the old days, they used to say you could tell the quality of someone's WCK just by their punch.

The other side of the coin is that when you are on the inside, that if you do certain things, it will make it much easier for an opponent to control you. For example, if you rotate to strike, your opponent will use that movement to control you. On the inside you will very likely not be able to step to generate power. Etc. IOWs, you need to have mechanics for striking that doesn't require rotation or stepping, that works as extreme short range, etc.

However, if you don't see WCK as having anything to do with controlling an opponent or involving inside fighting, then of course, none of this will make sense to you. You will look at things from a boxer/kickboxers POV -- your strikes will use localized muscle (hence the fast hand WCK), you will rotate for striking power, you will maintain an outside range, your elbows will come outside your bodyline, etc. IOWs, you will do everything opposite to how the forms and drills of WCK teach you.

very good post

[LoneTiger108]

I could prove to you in less than 3 minutes total that weapons fighting and unarmed fighting are completely different.

:D:D:D

SO! If it's that easy, show me a clip...

On a serious note, are you sure you are not misunderstanding my viewpoint on weaponry training?

I do not practise the WCK Knife Form as it is generally seen. I train my weaponry as a piece of drilling equipment, so as it benefits my strength and stamina AND technical knowledge.

I'm not talking of strategies or distancing because I know all to well the differences there!

Let me ask you this first: As a double stick man, do you think your training will benefit a WCK students knife work? AND do you feel that your fist is stronger or weaker because of your weaponry practise?

[JockSparrow]

Using the punch to destroy structure doesn't encourage "hand chasing" -- why would it? You don't seem to understand what I am talking when referring to breaking structure -- I mean their body structure (their ability to use their body effectively). Why hit to break structure rather than just hurt them? Because I can hurt them and if they retain body structure they can retaliate, defend, etc. But, if you break their structure, then they can't retaliate, defend, etc. They must first regain structure,so they are always a step behind you. With their structure broken, and me in control, then I can safely and more effectively put on the hurt.

<snip>

Of course. But just hitting him doesn't necessarily have that result. AND you want to make certain that you are safe before, during, and after striking him. That is the whole point behind controlling while striking, and why using the punch to break structure is an integral part to that.

Seems to me that this is a fairly unassailable viewpoint
(once you take out people's inherent desire to disagree with T. I don't personally agree with TN's debating style, I feel that he is too argumentative, but that doesn't make him wrong.)

[t_niehoff]

James: I like your point about control methods allowing for useful skill later in life.


Agreed.



LoneTiger108: Using the punch to force an opponent's retreat and/or realignment is one of the tactics available to us with the WCK punch. Based on posts so far, I would say that this is similar to the primary tactic which Terence assigns to the punch. (Yay or Nay, Terence?)


Yay.



Terence: I'm with you on most points, especially the objective of control. The inclusion of the Chi Gerk method into effective control is something we both share and enjoy, I think.

When it comes to rotation, though, I have a different take. This is probably because I train Tai Ji, which endorses rotation WITH THE SAME TYPE OF WARNINGS THAT MOY YAT EXPRESSED REGARDING HITTING; Namely, there are times and places for it, and times and places where it's inadvisable. In general, there is a lot of rotation applied in conjunction with Tai Ji's Chi Gerk methods, often as a set-up for my favourite punching strategy (Rock 'em, Sock 'em!) The most obvious expression can be found in Tai Ji's "Advance Step, Parry, Punch."

I equate the "energy" of non-rotational force in Wing Chun to Tai Ji's "Peng." It's useful and ubiquitous, but it's only 1/4th of the primary methods of Tai Ji.


My view is that tai ji and WCK have different approaches to fighting and thus use different method/tools (with some overlap).



In my own experience, I have also found that some Wing Chun lineages DO incorporate "rotation."


(Body) rotation is a part of WCK's curriculum -- but NOT as the main power source for strikes. When you use rotation for power, you can't strike with your core. Instead you rotate around that core. And that will significantly change the character of the force imparted by the strike.



When I met and trained with some RBWCK practitioners out West, there was actually emphasis on using structurally integrated rotation to evade(dissolve pressure,) control (apply unexpected shear forces to the opponent's structure, for example) and strike (generate concussive power.)


Evading is not one of WCK's main methods (we stay as he comes, we don't bat force away or dodge it or evade it); if you try to move away or evade the pressure of someone who is any good, they will use that to "escort" you. Rotation/turning is used frequently to break an opponent's structure by escorting his movement (we are attached to him and when he turns - to punch or evade or whatever - we escort or add on to his turn with our own turn).

And while you can use rotation with striking, the power of the punch still comes from the core hitting and not the rotation itself (which is only used to align the arm).



What I found interesting was their incorporation of torque into SLT. Beginners started off with really big, wide movements and a great deal of threaded rotation in the hips and waist ("unlocked" hips and waist.) As the training progressed, emphasis was placed on refining and reducing the amount of rotation needed to connect with and generate the "rotative force" in 1 inch or less; the end result being that, when you look at a decent SLT player from that line, it appears as though they are standing "still," ie not twisting in any way - when in fact they are.


For me, this is like saying that you start off swinging the hammer wildly, then over time you "refine" it down so that you no longer move that way . . . . Why not just learn to use the hammer as you will use it from the get-go?



Must there always be rotation? No, of course not. Must there NEVER be rotation? I do not agree with that either.


I am not saying there isn't rotation in WCK -- of course there is. My point is that this is not the source of our power in WCK, that it is nonrotational power, that it doesn't rely on stepping or turning, etc. IOWs, I am trying to describe a certain body mechanics (the YJKYM).

[t_niehoff]

does your arm not rotate when striking, even if your hips remain square? what about the jin choi? set. my favourite punch in fact. big power and outside fighting


The outside is a different game than the inside, almost like night and day (what works in one doesn't work so well in the other).

The WCK punch (jik chung choi) I am talking about is for the inside (and used body structure that works on the inside) -- it won't work (certainly not very well) on the outside (which is why when people do try to use the WCK "straight punch" on the outside, it ends up looking like a boxer's punch, the elbow goes out, etc.). And similarly, body rotation as a power source works very well on the outside, but leaves you exposed on the inside.

[t_niehoff]

Recalling Thornton's blog, I think this is one of the main reasons that there can be many "flavours" of Kung Fu (Can I say Wing Chun?)

What was focused on first? The outside or the inside?

In my Moy Yat derived training, the outside was first. The inside was last. The same appears to be the case with most lineages that I have come across, including the RBWCK out West. What about yours?


As I see it, since the WCK method uses the outside narrowly, mainly to set up getting the inside, so you need to learn the inside first (how you want to join, how you don't want to join, etc.).

But I do think that many teach the outside first, since learning the inside requires much more training to develop. Let's face it, if you want to teach youngsters a quick way to fight with other youngsters on the rooftops, you teach them to charge in with chain punching. Simple, fast to learn, and if you are facing unskilled teenagers, perhaps an effective way too. And so the Hong Kong method or what I call caveman WCK is born.



It seems to me that one of the biggest differences between the MYWCK and RBWCK is when rotation is introduced as a controlling, "escorting" (much better, I'll get back to that in a minute, thank you) and power generating method. In Ontario, I was introduced to it at the Chum Kiu level. In BC, it was introduced in the SLT level as an integral component of the punching method and a vital aspect of many WCK tools, including Huen Sao, Bong Sao, Gan Sao, even Tuut Sao. I found the RBWCK method of introducing rotation and its application in tool usage to make more sense given the context of what most lineages seem to say their development arc is, and what the drill progression generally is.

I understand Biu Ji to be about the inside game - rotation being applied for such things as elbows during takedowns. I agree that rotation is not effective power generation for punching when playing the inside game. If this is the game being played, then your punching strategy is probably the way to go.


From my own perspective, I see the WCK method as providing a framework for the fight and the various forms, SNT, CK, and BJ, not as "levels" but as texts that provide the tools needed to fill out various parts of that framework.

[t_niehoff]

Do you consider attachment as a whole to be an "inside game"?


Yes.



If so, it's different than the terminology I use. I can see how the "outside game" becomes a narrow focus with your definition.

Here's a bit of my terminology:
X: If I'm standing in YJKYM with double Biu Sao shapes, then the "inside gate" is the space between my arms. The "outside gate" is the space outside my arms.
Y: The "lower gate" is from Hips down, the "middle gate" from the hips to the sternum, and the "upper gate" from the sternum up.
Z: The "Long range" is unattached, "mid range" is limb-to-limb attachment, and "close range" is limb-to-body attachment or closer.

All of this is for an upright structure only.

So when we were talking about "inside game" and "outside game," I was talking about it in terms of "inside game" meaning to operate within the inside gate of your opponent, and "outside game" meaning to operate in the opponent's outside gate. Using this definition, does Wing Chun really have a preference? There are usable attachment and control options available to us in both scenarios.


Yes, I am not talking inside and outside "gates" -- don't get me started on "gates"! -- but inside range (where you are inside his striking/punching range) and outside range (where you need to step to strike the opponent). Or, to put it another way, free movement range (outside) and clinch (inside -- some refer to clinch as inside-closed, with inside-open being like what boxers do when close to an opponent). WCK's method of inside fighting is to get in (as we start from the outside) and stay inside his striking range, and this very often demands attachment/contact.



Do you feel that those tools are ordered in some rational way, or just scattered throughout the forms? I see a practical curriculum outline which follows a basic progression of physical conflict, up to the violent takedown. Beyond that... well, I've started basic Judo. :p :)

Yes, the forms are ordered in a rational way (another good topic for discussion), it's just that I don't see them as "training segments". I don't think it makes sense to teach SNT level WCK, then CK level WCK, etc. That's not how WCK works. So it doesn't make a lot of sense to teach or learn it that way IMO. There is a saying in Gu Lao WCK, "first application, then dummy, then form."

[Graham H]

Do you rotate when you do the punch in the forms? No, you stand in YJKYM and punch.

People rotate because they don't have body structure, so they try to compensate with momentum.

Yes T.......you do rotate when you punch in Chum Kiu, Muk Jong, and Bil Jee!!!!

If you don't think so then it shows your lack of understanding not only of the forms but also Ving tsun has a whole.

You one of those guys that thinks SLT is for fighting :D. In SLT you don't move because attention has to be given to the usage of the elbow whilst increasing strength in the stance before we can start to think about rotation and stepping.

This is a logical way of looking at the system. If you add turning and stepping to early before the correct foundations have been set then the student will compensate with the incorrect movement thus going against VT theory.

Of course you don't agree with this idea. Neither will your supporters and cronies alike but like I said before............I find your ideas illogical and not good for fighting.

Best wishes.

Spock :D

[FongSung]

, the forms are ordered in a rational way (another good topic for discussion), it's just that I don't see them as "training segments". I don't think it makes sense to teach SNT level WCK, then CK level WCK, etc. That's not how WCK works.

Maybe this is why originally there was only one fist form ;).

[LoneTiger108]

Thanks for the kind words - it's nice to see so many constructive posts. :)

LoneTiger108: Using the punch to force an opponent's retreat and/or realignment is one of the tactics available to us with the WCK punch. Based on posts so far, I would say that this is similar to the primary tactic which Terence assigns to the punch. (Yay or Nay, Terence?)

... I'm really enjoying this thread. Lots of valuable info on WCK and Kung Fu in general. If it's possible to clean this thread, I'd suggest putting it up as a Sticky and renaming it "KFO's WCK Tutorial" or some such thing.

Cheers
Christian

Christian: Constructive posts? Maybe so, but sometimes it does take most of us a while to get any points across and we do bicker over the silliest of things! I hope you too can contribute some well researched ideas as it seems you come with other TC martial experience.


Yes, I am not talking inside and outside "gates" -- don't get me started on "gates"! -- but inside range (where you are inside his striking/punching range) and outside range (where you need to step to strike the opponent). Or, to put it another way, free movement range (outside) and clinch (inside -- some refer to clinch as inside-closed, with inside-open being like what boxers do when close to an opponent). WCK's method of inside fighting is to get in (as we start from the outside) and stay inside his striking range, and this very often demands attachment/contact.

Blimey! This short segment of yours T explains a lot to me! :D This sort of thing helps all of our understanding I would think, as now I know your idea of 'inside' is totally different to most WCK students out there. I'm talking of a specific area or zone and you seem to be talking about a specific range? Now that is confusing!


There is a saying in Gu Lao WCK, "first application, then dummy, then form."

And the reasoning behind this statement?

I read that Leurng Jan retired to this area and only taught sansau first as a way to earn money. Quick fix technique and all that and definitely easier to teach! The wooden man sits in the same place as Ip Family, with the same emphasis, and the forms (in those days) would have been very highly regarded and not shown to outsiders at all.

Some Sifu brought similar attitudes to the west too, but that's another story...

[t_niehoff]

Yes T.......you do rotate when you punch in Chum Kiu, Muk Jong, and Bil Jee!!!!


No you don't -- unless you sifu changed the form.



If you don't think so then it shows your lack of understanding not only of the forms but also Ving tsun has a whole.


There is a video of Yip Man performing the chum kiu form, right? Do you see him shifting/rotating?

Do you know why WCK has the turning(rotating) punch?

It has nothing to do with generating power for the strike.

I'll give you a hint: it has to do with bridge suppression (think the two-man turning punch drill).



You one of those guys that thinks SLT is for fighting :D. In SLT you don't move because attention has to be given to the usage of the elbow whilst increasing strength in the stance before we can start to think about rotation and stepping.


None of the forms are for fighting. They teach the movement/actions of WCK and are organized thematically.

The YJKYM is the WCK body mechanic/structure, it is the basis of our power -- but it is not a "stance". In essence, the YJKYM is the ability to use your body in a particular spring-like way, permitting you to both receive pressure and release power. The turning/shifting and the steps are just extensions of that mechanic/structure (YJKYM in motion as it were). When you fight on the inside you will quickly see the necessity for having stationary power and being able to receive pressure.



This is a logical way of looking at the system. If you add turning and stepping to early before the correct foundations have been set then the student will compensate with the incorrect movement thus going against VT theory.


There is no such thing as "VT theory" -- that is just stuff people make up.



Of course you don't agree with this idea. Neither will your supporters and cronies alike but like I said before............I find your ideas illogical and not good for fighting.

Best wishes.

Spock :D

WCK is WCK, and what I am talking about aren't "ideas". I am talking about what the WCK punch, if properly developed, will and can do. That isn't unique to me or to Robert or our "lineage" but is a part of WCK. You need to look outside of your own little lineage.

And fwiw, the WCK punch I've been talking about seems to work very well in fighting, since Alan and his guys are using it, Dave McKinnon and his guys who have also fought in MMA are using it, I use it in sparring, and I've met people outside Robert's group who also use the punch to destroy structure rather well.

[t_niehoff]

Blimey! This short segment of yours T explains a lot to me! :D This sort of thing helps all of our understanding I would think, as now I know your idea of 'inside' is totally different to most WCK students out there. I'm talking of a specific area or zone and you seem to be talking about a specific range? Now that is confusing!


I never said "inside gate".



And the reasoning behind this statement?

I read that Leurng Jan retired to this area and only taught sansau first as a way to earn money. Quick fix technique and all that and definitely easier to teach! The wooden man sits in the same place as Ip Family, with the same emphasis, and the forms (in those days) would have been very highly regarded and not shown to outsiders at all.


What are the forms but a series of linked san sik? Even in Gu Lao, many have linked their san sik into forms.

The reasoning behind the statement? If I am going to teach you WCK, I teach you the method (the strategic framework), and then the tools you will need to implement the method, and then I put them into a form or forms so that you have a record or catalog of the actions/movements. If I teach you forms first, they are just dances, just empty movements that you will not know what you are doing with, what they are for, how to really do them, etc. In the same line of thought, fighting feeds the form, the form doesn't feed the fight.

[Graham H]

No you don't -- unless you sifu changed the form.



There is a video of Yip Man performing the chum kiu form, right? Do you see him shifting/rotating?

Do you know why WCK has the turning(rotating) punch?

It has nothing to do with generating power for the strike.

I'll give you a hint: it has to do with bridge suppression (think the two-man turning punch drill).



None of the forms are for fighting. They teach the movement/actions of WCK and are organized thematically.

The YJKYM is the WCK body mechanic/structure, it is the basis of our power -- but it is not a "stance". In essence, the YJKYM is the ability to use your body in a particular spring-like way, permitting you to both receive pressure and release power. The turning/shifting and the steps are just extensions of that mechanic/structure (YJKYM in motion as it were). When you fight on the inside you will quickly see the necessity for having stationary power and being able to receive pressure.



There is no such thing as "VT theory" -- that is just stuff people make up.



WCK is WCK, and what I am talking about aren't "ideas". I am talking about what the WCK punch, if properly developed, will and can do. That isn't unique to me or to Robert or our "lineage" but is a part of WCK. You need to look outside of your own little lineage.

And fwiw, the WCK punch I've been talking about seems to work very well in fighting, since Alan and his guys are using it, Dave McKinnon and his guys who have also fought in MMA are using it, I use it in sparring, and I've met people outside Robert's group who also use the punch to destroy structure rather well.

I totally disagree with everything you wrote. No point in replying.

GH

[LoneTiger108]

I never said "inside gate".

I know! But you 'could have' said contact range or something that is more disctinct :mad: ANYTHING that helps with understanding what you're on about sometimes would be great! ;)


What are the forms but a series of linked san sik? Even in Gu Lao, many have linked their san sik into forms.

Yes, all 'lifetimers' will end up doing this in some way, especially if they teach their kids! BUT the speciality of the 3 forms I feel is not as simple as sansik (loose sets) in fact they're far from 'loose ideas'. They have been cultivated overtime, and perhaps even collected together from various sources which would need more than one lifetimes research imho. Basically, indicating the Shaolin Temple in our development as well as the Red Boats.


The reasoning behind the statement? If I am going to teach you WCK, I teach you the method (the strategic framework), and then the tools you will need to implement the method, and then I put them into a form or forms so that you have a record or catalog of the actions/movements. If I teach you forms first, they are just dances, just empty movements that you will not know what you are doing with, what they are for, how to really do them, etc. In the same line of thought, fighting feeds the form, the form doesn't feed the fight.

There's a saying, "fighters need to think less!" so your way of teaching is for fighters as all the thinking is done within the forms, at the end of their time. Again, I do understand your point and I also coach in a pretty similar way to the way you describe, but I do it to 'protect' the forms as I believe in their worth. Anyone who is that interested in them must want to teach imho, and this is when they are passed on. FWIW My own Sifu calls this period of time an Induction!

Also, it has been seen with my own eyes that practising forms as a start point does somehow degrade your ability to adapt to changes, especially if this practise is not complimented with thorough and precise drilling and training of sansau sik (this is how I learnt! I danced the forms until the right time!) I have also seen the peeps who claim to know everything coz they learnt the forms and I can not stand that :eek: especially when I see the poor quality of movement.

There was an overall theme in the way I was trained and I used to use the term 'learning without knowing' or 'subliminal learning'! Basically I think this is what happens when the forms are passed on at a later stage. They switch the light on in your memory and you can see exactly what you have been doing over the years!! Point is, if you NEVER get to that stage, what exactly do you know but a list of loose techniques?

Similar experience anyone?

[t_niehoff]

Yes, all 'lifetimers' will end up doing this in some way, especially if they teach their kids! BUT the speciality of the 3 forms I feel is not as simple as sansik (loose sets) in fact they're far from 'loose ideas'. They have been cultivated overtime, and perhaps even collected together from various sources which would need more than one lifetimes research imho. Basically, indicating the Shaolin Temple in our development as well as the Red Boats.


I don't think you have a full appreciation for the san sik platform for teaching -- it is not a set of "loose ideas" but a progression of yau dim (important points).

You are missing the point of my post. The forms are san sik, they are just san sik linked together into sets, with the sets arranged thematically.

The Shaolin Temple and its relationship to TCMAs is more fiction that anything else and had nothing to do with the development of WCK.



There's a saying, "fighters need to think less!" so your way of teaching is for fighters as all the thinking is done within the forms, at the end of their time. Again, I do understand your point and I also coach in a pretty similar way to the way you describe, but I do it to 'protect' the forms as I believe in their worth. Anyone who is that interested in them must want to teach imho, and this is when they are passed on. FWIW My own Sifu calls this period of time an Induction!

Also, it has been seen with my own eyes that practising forms as a start point does somehow degrade your ability to adapt to changes, especially if this practise is not complimented with thorough and precise drilling and training of sansau sik (this is how I learnt! I danced the forms until the right time!) I have also seen the peeps who claim to know everything coz they learnt the forms and I can not stand that :eek: especially when I see the poor quality of movement.

There was an overall theme in the way I was trained and I used to use the term 'learning without knowing' or 'subliminal learning'! Basically I think this is what happens when the forms are passed on at a later stage. They switch the light on in your memory and you can see exactly what you have been doing over the years!! Point is, if you NEVER get to that stage, what exactly do you know but a list of loose techniques?

Similar experience anyone?

You don't understand what I was talking about at all. We have nothing in common.

[t_niehoff]

That's fair, and I understand. Too bad you've had problems with the definitions which preclude you from using them, your replacements make it confusing for some of the rest of us. :) It's not the "usual" lingo, but I agree that Wing Chun's method is primarily an "attached" (sticking) one, not an "unattached" (no-clinch kickboxing) one.
I also understand why you tried avoiding that particular way of describing it, because while there is often attachment/contact, there is sometimes not.


Yes, exactly. The inside (range) game is dynamic, and so is "sticking". That's why I call it the "phone booth", as in "WCK fights in a phone booth." That image gives you a good idea of what it is like.



With that definition dilemma somewhat hurdled for the time being, I have to disagree in terms of the role that coiling/uncoiling can play in controlling and striking a person (I'm trying to get away from the word "rotation," it seems an ill-suited word for this conversation.) Based on my experience, coiling has value, from helping to deliver a nice elbow to controlling them into a one-legged balancing act and then capitalizing on it, to actually delivering a punch which can still incorporate torque effectively in the "inside game" (could we change this term to "inside range?" That will make things easier for everyone, I think. )

Can control/power generation exist without coiling/"rotation?" Sure. Why limit ourselves though? Torque has many functional control uses when attached. It's worth investigating and training live, IMO.


My view is that our BASIC method, the YJKYM, does not involve coiling per se. That this body mechanic/structure by itself permits us to receive pressure and generate force. But when the pressure becomes too great for us to handle, we do"coil" (good description) or use the body like a "screw" (we screw ourselves into the ground). This is not dodging or evading or using the body like a "turnstile", however, but a secondary method that builds onto the YJKYM (that mechanic is still at work) and permits us to"stay as he comes". This is one of the tools in the CK. Ideally, it is used to "borrow" his pressure and unbalance him, to change the angle, to set up a wedge, etc.

Is this what you are talking about?

[jesper]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipfAK224798

comments ?

[Wayfaring]

When you fight on the inside, you will find that your opponent will grab, hold, throw punches from all angles, shoot, etc. So, you have to have a METHOD for dealing with all that. Just trying to hit him will not accomplish anything. WCK provides a method to deal with all that: to control the opponent while striking him.


Just a note to say that I agree with a lot of your last few posts here. The core of WCK is to control your opponent's center and balance, keeping him off balance as you pursue. IMO also that's a little understood true application of the chain punch, which is a cutting and destruction pursuit after you own the balance / center of your opponent. It is controlled and involves pursuit with your horse too though.

And yes I agree that the power generation is not rotational. It is to me what I describe as a wave motion that starts at the ground, goes through your center - hips, core - as the hammer and strikes with the fist as the nail.

[Wayfaring]

Funny, I was going to use one of Boztepe's vids as a cheesy control demo :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaP1X-lEtgc&feature=related

Regardless of the skill disparity in the vid and the flashy hands, he actually illustrates a lot of what we've been discussing in terms of basic control goals... he rarely strikes unless his opponent is off balance (under control.)

I couldn't see past the absolute lack of any form of structure within himself of his opponent.

[chusauli]

Yes, very much so.



This brings up some interesting points for me.

The first is "Tai Ji" Vs. "Liang Yi."

Liang Yi, "two extremes" is a training method whereby you focus on developing separate aspects or methods. Tai Ji, "Great Ultimate," is a training method whereby you focus on integrating everything together.

I'm also reminded of the classic "snake and crane" analogy. For instance, if the "crane" represents YJKYM and the methods you describe, and the "snake" represents the coiling methods I'm fond of, then we can say that, within the context of this discussion, we have separated the methods of Wing Chun according to a form of Liang Yi.

Some people use Liang Yi philosophy when training by trying to learn methods in isolation and then "switching" from method to method (crane to snake) as needed. I generally disagree with this idea: while I agree that certain methods will take precedence in certain situations (Moy Yat's hitting rules, for instance,) my wider take on it is to "Be the mutant snake/crane baby:" that is, to incorporate coiling into YJKYM and to use YJKYM as support for the coiling. This is a more integrated method in my view, closer to Tai Ji philosophy.

For me, neither "snake" or "crane," "coiling" or "YJKYM" are more important than the other. Both are vital to the control game. Integrating them together as per the "Tai Ji" definition above is key.

Take Huen Sao, for example. Both the outside and inside Huen Saos are introduced in the theme of SNT. In my experience, a huen sao requires both stable biomechanical support (YJKYM) AND coiling methods in order to be useful and effective for control.



Xiao Meng,

Your thoughts deal with the Chinese cosmological/metaphysical model, and yes, WCK can be viewed as "Tai Ji" and "Liang Yi". This is what we classical martial arts use in terminology flexibly.

"Tai Ji" can also refer to "Zhou Shen" (Whole Body) or "Quan Ti" (another way of saying complete body).

"Liang Yi" can also be "hand" or "body" and can further be divided to "Si Xiang" (4 shapes): Hand/Hand, Hand Body, Body/Hand, Body/Body transitions.

We can then break this down further to "Ba Gua" (8 Trigrams)... which permutate to 64 changes, which represent a basis for 10000 changes....

[YungChun]

This is not dodging or evading or using the body like a "turnstile", however, but a secondary method that builds onto the YJKYM (that mechanic is still at work) and permits us to"stay as he comes". This is one of the tools in the CK. Ideally, it is used to "borrow" his pressure and unbalance him, to change the angle, to set up a wedge, etc.

I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the smaller weaker person will never be moved or have their horse "broken" by a large person.. On these occasions I see a collapse and use of this energy, which broke the horse to reform and load the horse on a new angle in order to spring back.

I also don't agree that YGKYM is a "forward weighted" stance and have never seen anyone outside Chu lineage do it that way..

As for coiling where is it in the forms?

[t_niehoff]

I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the smaller weaker person will never be moved or have their horse "broken" by a large person..


Sure, these things happen but they are not the BASIS or the "default method" if you will of what we do.



On these occasions I see a collapse and use of this energy, which broke the horse to reform and load the horse on a new angle in order to spring back.


OK. What I think important to realize is that on the inside (range) when you "collapse" (once your body structure is lost), particularly if you are significantly weaker, it is very hard to recover as your opponent (if he isn't a scrub) will be over you like ugly on an ape.



I also don't agree that YGKYM is a "forward weighted" stance and have never seen anyone outside Chu lineage do it that way..


That is how all the older lineages (Gu Lao, YKS, etc.) teach it. Simple exercise: try to push something using your body/legs and see how the different weightings (on the toes, on the heels, on the center of the foot) change your performance ability. Also, ANY -- let me repeat ANY -- good athletic stance, whether basketball,, tennis, boxing, etc. ALL have you on the balls of your feet.



As for coiling where is it in the forms?

It is the turning (from the forms) while spring loading to receive pressure.

[YungChun]

OK. What I think important to realize is that on the inside (range) when you "collapse" (once your body structure is lost), particularly if you are significantly weaker, it is very hard to recover as your opponent (if he isn't a scrub) will be over you like ugly on an ape.

I don't see that as a loss of structure, more like releasing pressure.. The horse can simply reform/angle load and spring back.



That is how all the older lineages (Gu Lao, YKS, etc.) teach it. Simple exercise: try to push something using your body/legs and see how the different weightings (on the toes, on the heels, on the center of the foot) change your performance ability. Also, ANY -- let me repeat ANY -- good athletic stance, whether basketball,, tennis, boxing, etc. ALL have you on the balls of your feet.

If my partner/opponent does that (commits completely by moving his CG forward of his base) I'll lop him into yesterday..because he's not grounded. Any overcommitment wrt stance is limiting IMO, in CK we see great efforts made not to.

Got video of these others?

Many classical arts which load the legs are not ball weighted..or most..

You once said that Tsui Sheung Tin's (I think) horse was good..in any case as the video showed his students were pushing him in his single leg horse.. Clearly in such a stance (transferring force into the ground on single leg) the weight cannot be on the ball..

Loading the springs also means stretching muscles and when the weight=energy is on the ball the calf is not stretched--loaded, nor is the leg/qua properly set. When releasing energy the ankle and other joints will open explosively..



It is the turning (from the forms) while spring loading to receive pressure.
Ok.. In that case it's mainly the force that does the turning IMO...

[t_niehoff]

I don't see that as a loss of structure, more like releasing pressure.. The horse can simply reform/angle load and spring back.


In chi sao, yes; in fighting, no. That is one of the problems with chi sao: as it is an unrealistic exercise, you can get away with many different things, like what you describe, but in fighting things don't work that way.



If my partner/opponent does that (commits completely by moving his CG forward of his base) I'll lop him into yesterday..because he's not grounded. Any overcommitment wrt stance is limiting IMO, in CK we see great efforts made not to.


When you have good WCK body structure, being on the balls of your feet doesn't over-commit your weight forward. And, in fact, when you are on the inside and ESPECIALLY when in contact, you MUST be on the balls of your feet or you will go flying. Even MT fighters are on the balls of their feet in the clinch. Same with wrestlers. By being on the balls of your feet, you engage your arch, the strongest "spring" in your body -- and so when you are pushed, pulled, etc. it permits you to much more easily maintain structure and equilibrium.



Got video of these others?


If you look at Sum Nung, Sum Dek, the good Gu Lao stuff, etc. you can see it for yourself.



Many classical arts which load the legs are not ball weighted..or most..


OK, and ALL the functional (sport) marital arts, boxing, wrestling, judo, MT, etc. -- as well as all other athletic sports -- teach to move on the balls of the feet.



You once said that Tsui Sheung Tin's (I think) horse was good..in any case as the video showed his students were pushing him in his single leg horse.. Clearly in such a stance (transferring force into the ground on single leg) the weight cannot be on the ball..


Yes, it is-- and it is the only way it will work. I can do that too (easily). But, what happens is when you are on the balls of your feet and your opponent presses into you, your arch acts as a spring and compresses, so your heel then gets pressed to the floor (remember the kuit "strength comes from the heel"? this is what is being referred to) -- but your weight is still on the ball. If your weight goes to your heel, you will go flying backwards.



Loading the springs also means stretching muscles and when the weight=energy is on the ball the calf is not stretched--loaded, nor is the leg/qua properly set. When releasing energy the ankle and other joints will open explosively..


The whole body acts in a coordinated way to act as a spring, from the foot (arch) to the head. When a sprinter is in the blocks, he is on his toes, not to "stretch the calf" but to load his arches, the spring comes from the arch. This is also why boxing uses jumping rope -- it isn't just for the cardio (though it is great for that too) but to exercise the arch, the spring.



Ok.. In that case it's mainly the force that does the turning IMO...

Exactly. When the pressure gets to great for us to handle, we "coil" or "screw" -- that is, turn INTO the opponent, not away from him, as we sink, sort of like (though not exactly like) when someone throws a heavy medicine ball at your torso: you catch it and turn (slightly) as you sink otherwise it would knock you backward.

[t_niehoff]

I almost missed this excellent post . ..


Just a note to say that I agree with a lot of your last few posts here. The core of WCK is to control your opponent's center and balance, keeping him off balance as you pursue.


I'm glad we are on the same page. And WCK provides a method for doing that and the tools for doing that.



IMO also that's a little understood true application of the chain punch, which is a cutting and destruction pursuit after you own the balance / center of your opponent. It is controlled and involves pursuit with your horse too though.


Absolutely correct. The chain punch (tactic) is BEST used AFTER (to use your words) "you own the balance / center of your opponent" (very good!) and are in destructive pursuit mode. I say "best" because like any tactic, you can sometimes get away with it at other times though it may not be optimal.

If you try chain punching BEFORE you "own the balance / center" it will leave you open to all kinds of problems, from being easily taken down to having your opponent crash in to body-to-body clinch. You see this all the time when people use caveman WCK (charging in from the outside with chain punches). When you "own the balance/center" you won't encounter these problems.



And yes I agree that the power generation is not rotational. It is to me what I describe as a wave motion that starts at the ground, goes through your center - hips, core - as the hammer and strikes with the fist as the nail.

OK. For me there is no "wave", but this may just be our own personal sensations describing the same thing.

[YungChun]

In chi sao, yes; in fighting, no.


Force is force.. Being pushed/pulled is being pushed/pulled..


so your heel then gets pressed to the floor (remember the kuit "strength comes from the heel"? this is what is being referred to) -- but your weight is still on the ball. If your weight goes to your heel, you will go flying backwards.


It's about how much and where.. If your heel gets pressed down to receive force most of the weight is toward the rear of the foot, that's basic physics..

The heel gets pressed to the floor exactly because it is not structurally sound not pressed to the floor when force is applied.. Structures don't get pressed down in the rear (heel) to balance when the energy and main support is in the front..rather the reason the foot gets pressed to the heel is because THAT is where the energy is going...that's the only reason the heel is pressed to the floor: to balance out the base..

Is all the weight "on the heel" or rear edge? No not all.. But the heel being pressed to the floor shows us that's where the force is going and that is my point.. Where in the forms is there a heel raised horse? Chun is not grappling, does not use a hunched over grappling structure, totally different animal, you should see that.

From a mechanical structural stand point this is no different than a built structure, the most weight will be pressed to the opposite end of the base, like a car stopping going forward most of the weight is transferred to the front, when stopping in reverse it's transferred to the rear.. The length of the car, front wheels, rear wheels, just like the foot, front, ball; rear, heel..the force is sent to the opposite end in the direction of the force vector.

[YungChun]

The whole body acts in a coordinated way to act as a spring, from the foot (arch) to the head. When a sprinter is in the blocks, he is on his toes, not to "stretch the calf" but to load his arches, the spring comes from the arch. This is also why boxing uses jumping rope -- it isn't just for the cardio (though it is great for that too) but to exercise the arch, the spring.


Agreed to a point, but words may get in the way here.. I use terms that I have learned from bio-mechanic researchers as well as more common terms..

The stretch is the loading, the storing of potential energy in the muscles.. As in a pitcher just before he fires off the ball..or chambering..

Power comes from the muscles, the larger muscles make most of the power.. Two of the largest are the qua, glutes and the quads/legs.. However you want to say it, these are the engines and they are muscles and they are loaded and fired...a non stretched muscle cannot release much power..

These generators use the ground as a brace to direct power through the bones... In CMA terms the power comes (mainly) from the horse in a sudden shock that moves from the feet/legs through all the joints/bones to and out the arm/fist/hand--nail..

[Sardinkahnikov]

sorry to bludgeon my way into your conversation, but, I, like many, have been taught to keep your weight on heels. Of course, when you're moving around and receiving pressure it's hard to keep your weight centered around a specific spot of your feet, but anyway: I've always been under the impression that keeping your weight on the balls of your feet while practicing in YJKYM is really bad for your knees. What you think about that?

[sihing]

Regarding heel pivoting and such, first and for most, the weight is NOT on the heel, if it is you are leaning back too much and easily pushed over, the idea is to pivot FROM the heel, there's a difference. What one is learning is to keep the spine or center axis steady as one shifts/pivots. In training this is done to a high degree, as in Chum kiu we pivot 180 deg side to side in the first section, this is to TRAIN it, and it is not meant to be that way in application. Pivoting also teaches the idea of a unified body, as the pivot is done with the torso (the knees to the chest) pivoting as a unit, it brings the legs inline with the upper body. The weight on the foot is on the whole foot when there is no pressure coming upon the body (like in solo practice), but when I pivot my heels stay stationary. In WT when they pivot their heels are moving, therefore their center axis is swaying side to side, for us that's a no no.

When I feel force upon my body, I don't try to move away from it, rather I absorb it or redirect it, you can't do that when your center axis stability is weak and moves away from that line. Now when force is upon your body, your weighting will shift on the foot, from the front to the back depending on the circumstances. Its all about a maintaining a pressure upon your opponent that forces them back, your body must be able to adjust and adapt to the pressure coming upon it quickly and with as little movement as possible, that is why we have chi sau and prolonged contact drills, to learn how to deal with force/pressure in a ever changing environment.

Now as T and YC have mentioned, real VT power comes from the leg/glutes, and is channelled into our elbows from the waist/hip, pivoting allows us to create angles when needed, redirecting force upon our structure and is a very small movement, like everything in VT is. You start out practicing it in large movements, then tighten everything up as it would be in application.

James

[Wayfaring]

I've always been under the impression that keeping your weight on the balls of your feet while practicing in YJKYM is really bad for your knees. What you think about that?

Disagree. You will have zero forward intent in your bridge having your weight on your heels.

[Sardinkahnikov]

Disagree. You will have zero forward intent in your bridge having your weight on your heels.

Uhhh ok but what about the knees? I rocked my right knee really bad in an accident once and it hurts if I stay in YJKYM with my weight the balls of my feet.

[YungChun]

Disagree. You will have zero forward intent in your bridge having your weight on your heels.

Totally disagree.. To me this is a form of leaning on him which is different..

But it's not about having "weight on the heels"...this is a misnomer...

It's whether or not the foot is flat..not about "weight on heels"... IMO the entire load is borne by the entire foot/floor contact area and in so doing one may certainly generate forward pressure.. If folks (from in contact) are lifting the heels up off the ground--keeping it like that--more or less on the toes/ball and generating force that way then great, but that's not my method, nor would I advocate it as correct..

I can press and generate forward force/energy from/with my entire foot/feet making contact with the ground.. And that isn't some static dynamic that stays (we move we change) but that's how it's loaded.. Again there is no raised heel horse in the forms nor is it consistent with my idea of proper (maximum) ground connection and balanced force projection..

[t_niehoff]

Regarding heel pivoting and such, first and for most, the weight is NOT on the heel, if it is you are leaning back too much and easily pushed over, the idea is to pivot FROM the heel, there's a difference.

No, the weight is on the balls of the feet and you pivot on the balls.

[YungChun]

No, the weight is on the balls of the feet and you pivot on the balls.

How did Yip do it in the forms?

I pivot on my feet.. :)

[t_niehoff]

Totally disagree.. To me this is a form of leaning on him which is different..

But it's not about having "weight on the heels"...this is a misnomer...

It's whether or not the foot is flat..not about "weight on heels"... IMO the entire load is borne by the entire foot/floor contact area and in so doing one may certainly generate forward pressure.. If folks (from in contact) are lifting the heels up off the ground--keeping it like that--more or less on the toes/ball and generating force that way then great, but that's not my method, nor would I advocate it as correct..

I can press and generate forward force/energy from/with my entire foot/feet making contact with the ground.. And that isn't some static dynamic that stays (we move we change) but that's how it's loaded.. Again there is no raised heel horse in the forms nor is it consistent with my idea of proper (maximum) ground connection and balanced force projection..

There is no "leaning", it is about loading your structure into the opponent -- to him, it will "feel" like he is trying to hold you back from running over him. If he releases pressure, you don't "fall" forward but "spring into" (fully erect POSTURE - thanx Jim!) -- this is lut sao jik chung.

There is no "raised heel"; you don't want a raised heel. You want your weight to be on the balls of your feet, with your feet flat against the floor. And as I have said, the YJKYM is performed with the weight on the balls of the feet in YKS, PN, Gu Lao, Yik Kam, etc. So much for saying that it isn't "in" the form.

You can load as you say (so can I) without using your arch (as I have described), however, you would be able to receive much more pressure and generate much more power by engaging your bodies most powerful spring, the arch. But, the only way to convince you of that firsthand experience.

[t_niehoff]

How did Yip do it in the forms?

I pivot on my feet.. :)

Let application be your sifu.

[anerlich]

I've always been under the impression that keeping your weight on the balls of your feet while practicing in YJKYM is really bad for your knees. What you think about that?

I've never experienced this and don't know anyone affected. I've seen and experienced a number of knee injuries over the years, but none from WC stance work.

Do you experience this? Do you know of anyone else who has been affected?

[YungChun]

You can load as you say (so can I) without using your arch (as I have described), however, you would be able to receive much more pressure and generate much more power by engaging your bodies most powerful spring, the arch.

I'm not sure I am understanding your use of the term arch... You mean the back/spine?

[YungChun]

If he releases pressure, you don't "fall" forward but "spring into" (fully erect) -- this is lut sao jik chung.

That's what she said.. ;)

[t_niehoff]

I'm not sure I am understanding your use of the term arch... You mean the back/spine?

The arch in your foot. When your weight is on the balls of your feet it engages the arch in your foot like a spring.

[YungChun]

The arch in your foot. When your weight is on the balls of your feet it engages the arch in your foot like a spring.

Okay well I have no problem keeping an open mind and playing with it..

My way is a little different.. I load the leg(s), the qua and using the dynamic I trained I feel great power stored in the horse.. my rear leg is pulled under me..

But either way I can't see how the "arch" is the "body's most powerful spring"... The arch isn't a muscle and the calf muscle which is what's in play there is certainly not the most powerful muscle in the body... unless you are speaking of the whole leg connection with the qua..

Also, to me it depends on what the dynamic at work is.. Talking about a stance, a particular position is one thing but when you are fighting, at least IME you are constantly moving and changing... I just use my horse it "knows" what to do from my training.

[t_niehoff]

Force is force.. Being pushed/pulled is being pushed/pulled..


Pressure may be pressure (I don't like the word 'force'), but how it is applied in fighting and chi sao are very different, in terms of intensity, the nature of it, etc.



It's about how much and where.. If your heel gets pressed down to receive force most of the weight is toward the rear of the foot, that's basic physics..


No, YOUR weight remains on the balls of your feet, but the arch of your foot acts like a spring and it is compressed by the pressure.



The heel gets pressed to the floor exactly because it is not structurally sound not pressed to the floor when force is applied.. Structures don't get pressed down in the rear (heel) to balance when the energy and main support is in the front..rather the reason the foot gets pressed to the heel is because THAT is where the energy is going...that's the only reason the heel is pressed to the floor: to balance out the base..


No, see above. The heel is, btw, already in contact with the floor, it is just the pressure on you is directed into the arch because you are weighted on the balls of the feet, your foot has nowhere to go because your heel is on the ground, so the arch "absorbs" the pressure like a spring.

To get a feeling for this, try pushing a stalled car. Your weight will be on the balls of your feet but your whole foot (including the heel) will be in contact with the ground. The YJKYM uses this mechanic but while maintaining a vertical (erect) posture.

[t_niehoff]

Okay well I have no problem keeping an open mind and playing with it..

My way is a little different.. I load the leg(s), the qua and using the dynamic I trained I feel great power stored in the horse..


As I said, I too use the leg, qua, and the whole body to do this (and can load without the arch). But, the arch provides a huge asset.



But either way I can't see how the "arch" is the "body's most powerful spring"... The arch isn't a muscle and the calf with is what's in play there is certainly not the most powerful muscle in the body...


The arch is comprised of ligaments and tendons (and muscles) and is immensely powerful, it carries your entire body weight all day long, etc.



Also, to me it depends on what the dynamic at work is.. Talking about a stance, a particular position is one thing but when you are fighting, at least IME you are constantly moving and changing... I just "use my horse" it knows what to do from my training.

Here's the deal, regardless of how you train, when you have to move at high intensity -- at very quick speed, under high levels of pressure, etc. -- no matter what you have "trained", you will nonetheless move as your body is "hardwired" to move (how you naturally move). Nothing can change that. Your body will have to move as it is "hardwired" to function at that high level of intensity.

When you have to move as fast as you can, when you have to receive high levels of pressure, etc. you will move on the balls of your feet whether you train to or not. Smart people recognize this and train accordingly -- they train using this hard-wiring. In that way, they train X to do X.

Think about it.

[YungChun]

Think about it.

Just playing with it now.. There seems to be some of this going on but I can't tell exactly where the weight is... There is definitely a strong tension in the "arch" but I am not trying to place the weight on the ball exactly...

I don't know maybe I'll come over and you can see what I mean.. :)

[t_niehoff]

Just playing with it now.. There seems to be some of this going on but I can't tell exactly where the weight is... There is definitely a strong tension in the "arch" but I am not trying to place the weight on the ball exactly...

I don't know maybe I'll come over and you can see what I mean.. :)

You are always welcome. And I am sure Robert would welcome you too.

I think that you will find that if you can "add" the arch, via putting the weight on the balls of your feet, into the mechanics of the loading you are already doing it will give you much greater leverage, power, etc.

[YungChun]

Well after taking a close look at my stances I realized that there is indeed a focus of weight in that location above, more so in my ChumKiuMa than my YGKYM..

Part of my confusion with the whole thing was the description of "on the balls", where I then thought folks meant the heels were raised, (like boxing bouncing around on the balls of their feet) but with the heel down and focus on the ball it makes sense for loading.

This actually does cause a stretch of the calf muscle and was always there in my CK/BikMa.. My YGKYM needs a looking over now though...

Interesting stuff.. :cool:

[chusauli]

You are always welcome. And I am sure Robert would welcome you too.

I think that you will find that if you can "add" the arch, via putting the weight on the balls of your feet, into the mechanics of the loading you are already doing it will give you much greater leverage, power, etc.

Terence,

Stop volunteering my time. I am very busy and do want to have any other NYC WCK guys coming over...! Also, stop giving away my secrets online. I really do not appreciate that.

(Just kidding! :) )

[YungChun]

I am very busy and do want to have any other NYC WCK guys coming over...!


Seriously.. Remember what happened last time..

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lkOPHZJetNI/SwLlNwaoHoI/AAAAAAAAHSY/DOawzojAuOI/s1600/Mob.jpg

:)

lol

[chusauli]

Yes, it went like this:

(Shrek sneaks up on a mob about to enter his swamp)
1st Villager: Do you know what that thing could do to you?
2nd Villager: Yeah, it'll grind your bones for its bread!
Shrek: (exposes himself) Well, actually, that would be a giant. Now, ogres - oh, they're much worse. They'll make a suit from your freshly peeled skin! They'll shave your liver, squeeze the jelly from your eyes! Actually, it's quite good on toast.
3rd Villager: (waves his torch in front of Shrek) Back! Back, ya beast! Back! I warn ya!
(Shrek calmly licks his fingers and extinguishes the torch like a match)
3rd Villager: (nervously) Right.
(silence)
Shrek: (roars ferociously) ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGH!!!!!!!!!!
(he waits until the villagers have stopped screaming)
Shrek: (whispers) This is the part where you run away.
(the villagers do so)
Shrek: (laughs) And stay out!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Phil Redmond]

Well after taking a close look at my stances I realized that there is indeed a focus of weight in that location above, more so in my ChumKiuMa than my YGKYM..

Part of my confusion with the whole thing was the description of "on the balls", where I then thought folks meant the heels were raised, (like boxing bouncing around on the balls of their feet) but with the heel down and focus on the ball it makes sense for loading.

This actually does cause a stretch of the calf muscle and was always there in my CK/BikMa.. My YGKYM needs a looking over now though...

Interesting stuff.. :cool:
Look here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G71f8X4mGfo

[YungChun]

Look here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G71f8X4mGfo

Interesting, but I don't really use the turning from the outside...per se.. I also wouldn't normally step away/back..

Some have recently associated it with coiling and I agree with T's explanation of it..wrt to dealing with "pressure" .. Much the same thing Kevin and I were trying to get across at one point (I think) when dealing with pressure--their pressure turns you...and you face to gain position..etc.

[LSWCTN1]

Interesting, but I don't really use the turning from the outside...per se.. I also wouldn't normally step away/back..

Some have recently associated it with coiling and I agree with T's explanation of it..wrt to dealing with "pressure" .. Much the same thing Kevin and I were trying to get across at one point (I think) when dealing with pressure--their pressure turns you...and you face to gain position..etc.

sounds exactly like the way i am taught with bong sau, and i think when i raised it last time only Victor? agreed with me?

[Graham H]

Shouldnt be turning on the balls of your feet. It causes problems

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--wgG_TsHIQ&NR=1

GH

[t_niehoff]

Look here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G71f8X4mGfo

The reason you can't shift (without stepping) and maintain body structure is you don't have body structure in the first place.

Try this, try to already be holding/receiving pressure -- like you will if fighting on the inside -- and then try your step/turn. You will go flying.

The WCK shifting is for when you already have contact (why it is introduced in the CK), it for the inside, for contact-attached fighting. And, the shift isn't used to evade or step away from but just the opposite, to turn into the opponent, to destroy their balance/structure.

When you take WCK tools that are "designed"for the inside and try to make them work on the outside, you are training to fail.

[t_niehoff]

Well after taking a close look at my stances I realized that there is indeed a focus of weight in that location above, more so in my ChumKiuMa than my YGKYM..

Part of my confusion with the whole thing was the description of "on the balls", where I then thought folks meant the heels were raised, (like boxing bouncing around on the balls of their feet) but with the heel down and focus on the ball it makes sense for loading.

This actually does cause a stretch of the calf muscle and was always there in my CK/BikMa.. My YGKYM needs a looking over now though...

Interesting stuff.. :cool:

The other thing is that in terms of dealing with a shoot or takedown attempt, if you are not on the balls of your feet you won't be able to defend a half-way decent shot. So the WCK guys that are weighted on the heel or whole foot are essentially giving their opponent the easy takedown.

As I mentioned, all the functional (sport) in-fighting methods, MT, wrestling, judo, etc. all move off the balls of their feet. If you are doing this in your WCK, then you can incorporate some of their tools, e.g. the sprawl, into your own individual game more easily.

[YungChun]

Yes, it went like this:


Robert are you an aspiring script writer?

Here's an idea for a show: About an average kind of guy who's a public defender.. In each show he ends up doing some independent investigation to gather evidence in hopes of getting his *innocent* clients off only to run into some seriously bad dudes.. At which point he reluctantly, in a Jim Rockford like manner whips out his own brand of Chun... This leads to some very interesting fight scenes, and of course foiling the bad guy's plot and clearing his clients... 60 minute runtime..

Possible Title: "Contemporary Defense"

And there you go, just mail me a check..k? :D

[YungChun]

sounds exactly like the way i am taught with bong sau, and i think when i raised it last time only Victor? agreed with me?

Not sure what you had said about your use of Bong..

[chusauli]

Nah, Jim. I've just been watching too many Shrek movies with my kids. You might have the talent to do so. Me, I'm just a Chinese medicine practitioner who sees the humor in all things. I make a lot of jokes when I teach.

Life is short and much more than a forum.

Have fun!

[shawchemical]

No, the weight is on the balls of the feet and you pivot on the balls.

You definitely do NOT pivot on the balls of your feet,

[t_niehoff]

You definitely do NOT pivot on the balls of your feet,

I'm sure YOU don't. But, every single fighter WILL.

[SAAMAG]

I'm sure YOU don't. But, every single fighter WILL.

Yep. Kinda shows you who fights and who doesn't...doesn't it?

[shawchemical]

I'm sure YOU don't. But, every single fighter WILL.

Not true.

But you not understanding why pivoting should NOT be on the balls of the feet is unsurprising.

Pivoting on the balls of the feet induces the heel to lift of the ground, effectively reducing the kinetic energy delivered through impact into the opponents body. This has the effect of weakening the punches you're throwing. In addition it changes the distance between the man and you. Another poor reason to pivot on the balls of the feet.

It is the waist which drives the pivot, with everything below the ribcage acting in unison.

Quit thinking the everyone fights the same. Watch UFC for even a smidgen of what works, but don't get trapped into thinking that it is the ONLY thing that works.

[shawchemical]

The other thing is that in terms of dealing with a shoot or takedown attempt, if you are not on the balls of your feet you won't be able to defend a half-way decent shot. So the WCK guys that are weighted on the heel or whole foot are essentially giving their opponent the easy takedown.

As I mentioned, all the functional (sport) in-fighting methods, MT, wrestling, judo, etc. all move off the balls of their feet. If you are doing this in your WCK, then you can incorporate some of their tools, e.g. the sprawl, into your own individual game more easily.

you're a clueless moron T.

[t_niehoff]

Not true.

But you not understanding why pivoting should NOT be on the balls of the feet is unsurprising.

Pivoting on the balls of the feet induces the heel to lift of the ground, effectively reducing the kinetic energy delivered through impact into the opponents body. This has the effect of weakening the punches you're throwing. In addition it changes the distance between the man and you. Another poor reason to pivot on the balls of the feet.

It is the waist which drives the pivot, with everything below the ribcage acting in unison.

Quit thinking the everyone fights the same. Watch UFC for even a smidgen of what works, but don't get trapped into thinking that it is the ONLY thing that works.

Everyone in the UFC is weighted on and moves on his toes. Every single one. All athletes, including boxers, in every dynamic sport do too.

All the "old lineages" of WCK, Gu Lao, YKS, Pan Nam, Yik Kam, etc. -- ALL of them -- teach being weighted on the K1 point or what we call the ball of the foot.

When you run, your weight is on the balls of your feet. It HAS to be. That's what you NEED to do to move at full speed, to use all your body power, etc.

As Van pointed out, things like this show who is fighting and who isn't. And you're not fighting.

[LoneTiger108]

All the "old lineages" of WCK, Gu Lao, YKS, Pan Nam, Yik Kam, etc. -- ALL of them -- teach being weighted on the K1 point or what we call the ball of the foot.

;) I would like to add that I agree the ball of the foot is essential to WCK stepping/stance work, althouh I have to say that I'm an advocate of using the WHOLE foot too! I think if you have practised the single leg you would appreciate the variances pressure can play on the foot positioning and weight distribution.

Surely the key here is flexibility? After all, who has tried standing on the plum flower posts? Posture interactions at varied angles and with fixed and mobile YJKYM? All on the posts?

That will show you very quickly when the heel and ball is best used fme

[t_niehoff]

;) I would like to add that I agree the ball of the foot is essential to WCK stepping/stance work, althouh I have to say that I'm an advocate of using the WHOLE foot too! I think if you have practised the single leg you would appreciate the variances pressure can play on the foot positioning and weight distribution.

Surely the key here is flexibility? After all, who has tried standing on the plum flower posts? Posture interactions at varied angles and with fixed and mobile YJKYM? All on the posts?

That will show you very quickly when the heel and ball is best used fme

No. Standing on "plum flower posts" is silly and it won't show you anything.

My point - which you haven't seem to have grasped - is that to move dynamically, athletically, very quickly, or to receive/generate high levels of pressure, you will NEED -- because this is how the human body is "designed" -- to be weighted on and move from the balls of your feet. FIGHTING shows you this -- not forms, not plum flower posts, not Lee Shing. Fighting.

The various "older" lineages simply REFLECT that FACT in their horses.

[LoneTiger108]

The various "older" lineages simply REFLECT that FACT in their horses.

As my point reflects T, I am from one of these "older" lineages. And our horse is just trained in a different way than yours, as you don't do moi faa jong and I do.

Still, if you never try you'll never know :rolleyes:

[LoneTiger108]

That will show you very quickly when the heel and ball is best used fme

:cool: Maybe I should have added "as well as fighting!" :D

[t_niehoff]

As my point reflects T, I am from one of these "older" lineages. And our horse is just trained in a different way than yours, as you don't do moi faa jong and I do.

Still, if you never try you'll never know :rolleyes:

That doesn't "train" the horse. I don't to the plum flower posts just like I don't do tons of other silly things.

A horse is a way of using your body (to do certain things) not how you stand or how you step -- that is just the superficial aspect of a horse. Your horse is what throws your opponent around like a rag doll. You don't develop your horse by standing or stepping or by "posts" -- you develop it by using it.

[LoneTiger108]

That doesn't "train" the horse. I don't to the plum flower posts just like I don't do tons of other silly things.

A horse is a way of using your body (to do certain things) not how you stand or how you step -- that is just the superficial aspect of a horse. Your horse is what throws your opponent around like a rag doll. You don't develop your horse by standing or stepping or by "posts" -- you develop it by using it.

Now I'm superficial T! Great! :cool:

I'm sure if we were in the same room I could quite easily show you how my horse works to throw you around lkike a rag doll, as would yours T. I've been on the receiving end of good and bad structures through the years to know that how I train the moi faa jong helps me in a massive way. It does train your whole body dude, especially when you know what you're doing.

But I guess that's the key here. Knowing what to draw from simple exercises and how to put them to a practical use. This is key to WCK imho, and SLT reflects this. I know it's a harsh thing to say, but without the moi faa SLT will only ever be a dead form. Held at a very early stage, by people who think they're standing on a boat or something.

FWIW Its training equipment like the pole, wooden man and mui faa jong that connects the Lee Shing family to Shaolin and the Red Boats, not to mention the 'verse-like' classical literature. It's there, in the curriculums for everyone to see but most tend to miss it through ignorance.

You seem to be one of many who has this talent for ignorance :(

[t_niehoff]

Now I'm superficial T! Great! :cool:

I'm sure if we were in the same room I could quite easily show you how my horse works to throw you around lkike a rag doll, as would yours T. I've been on the receiving end of good and bad structures through the years to know that how I train the moi faa jong helps me in a massive way. It does train your whole body dude, especially when you know what you're doing.


Stop dreaming. Go try and throw Alan and his guys around. You'll see.



But I guess that's the key here. Knowing what to draw from simple exercises and how to put them to a practical use. This is key to WCK imho, and SLT reflects this. I know it's a harsh thing to say, but without the moi faa SLT will only ever be a dead form. Held at a very early stage, by people who think they're standing on a boat or something.

FWIW Its training equipment like the pole, wooden man and mui faa jong that connects the Lee Shing family to Shaolin and the Red Boats, not to mention the 'verse-like' classical literature. It's there, in the curriculums for everyone to see but most tend to miss it through ignorance.

You seem to be one of many who has this talent for ignorance :(

WCK has nothing to do with Shaolin -- another fairy tale.

You don't learn or develop your horse with the plum flower posts.

The forms are not training.

Go train with Alan for a bit and have your eyes opened.

[LoneTiger108]

Stop dreaming. Go try and throw Alan and his guys around. You'll see.

Go train with Alan for a bit and have your eyes opened.

Ah! We're back on to that old trick again are we?

As much as I would love to train with ANYONE these days, what makes you think that Alan will open my eyes? And open them to what exactly?

I know we all have something to offer, and something to learn, but my guess is that another meeting (to actually train this time!) between me and Alan will never happen. Just a feeling, but I don't think there is a mutual respect at all.

Maybe things would be different if you would just stop pimping Alan out to me all the time dude... :eek: :o

[Graham H]

Maybe things would be different if you would just stop pimping Alan out to me all the time dude... :eek: :o

All arguments aside......that was funny...:D:D

GH

[Eric_H]

Stop dreaming. Go try and throw Alan and his guys around. You'll see.



WCK has nothing to do with Shaolin -- another fairy tale.

You don't learn or develop your horse with the plum flower posts.

The forms are not training.

Go train with Alan for a bit and have your eyes opened.

Terrence,

Yip Ching has stated that WCK comes from shaolin, as have various other senior WCK people. Looking at it, WCK has all the signatures of a Siu Lam system, so really, your uninformed opinion on WCK history doesn't hold much weight.

As for the Horse there are two pieces to it:

Static - Body Connection and proper form
Dynamic - Power generation and force emission

LoneTiger seems to be talking #1 and you seem to be talking #2. You can develop great form doing stuff like plum flower posts, but without training the use of it it's worthless. So, both of you are absolutely correct in this instance, just from different sides.

LoneTiger, have you tried more modern instability training? Do you think it compares to the plum flower posts?

Terence, do you use any instability training when developing the YGKYM connection?

[CFT]

You mean like a wobble board or somesuch?

What about Robert Chu sifu's published structure tests? Something like that should form part of the YGKYM development process.

[t_niehoff]

Yip Ching has stated that WCK comes from shaolin, as have various other senior WCK people. Looking at it, WCK has all the signatures of a Siu Lam system, so really, your uninformed opinion on WCK history doesn't hold much weight.


Shaolin being the source of martial art is a MYTH.



As for the Horse there are two pieces to it:

Static - Body Connection and proper form
Dynamic - Power generation and force emission


No. The horse is always dynamic.



Terence, do you use any instability training when developing the YGKYM connection?

What is "the YJKYM connection"? I train the YJKYM by using that body structure in application -- there is NO other way to train it.

[t_niehoff]

Ah! We're back on to that old trick again are we?


Yes, you keep telling me your theories, and I tell you to go train with some real fighters and see that your views are fantasy.



As much as I would love to train with ANYONE these days, what makes you think that Alan will open my eyes? And open them to what exactly?


Alan and his guys are fighters, not play fighters but people who really fight as a core part of their training. If you went and actually trained with fighters, it would open your eyes to how much of your view is purely theoretical fantasy.



I know we all have something to offer, and something to learn, but my guess is that another meeting (to actually train this time!) between me and Alan will never happen. Just a feeling, but I don't think there is a mutual respect at all.


I doubt very much it will either -- I think the last thing in the world you would do is train with fighters.



Maybe things would be different if you would just stop pimping Alan out to me all the time dude... :eek: :o

The problem is that the ONLY way out of your fantasy fu bubble is by going out and training with skillful fighters. It doesn't have to be Alan (though he trains WCK), it could be MMA or MT.

WCK can only be "understood" by and through fighting.

[LoneTiger108]

Yip Ching has stated that WCK comes from shaolin, as have various other senior WCK people. Looking at it, WCK has all the signatures of a Siu Lam system, so really, your uninformed opinion on WCK history doesn't hold much weight.

Not that I learnt about WCK development through Ip Ching, but thanks for the informed support on our Shaolin connection. :) I think people like T just have something against anything that the Ip Family have said or done over the past fifty years or so! :rolleyes:


LoneTiger, have you tried more modern instability training? Do you think it compares to the plum flower posts?

An example would help?! Which suggests that I haven't used 'modern equipment' as such, but you never know until you ask, right?

[LoneTiger108]

Shaolin being the source of martial art is a MYTH.

The only myth here T is your superior knowledge of WCK :o:o:confused:

Did I say Shaolin is the 'source of Martial Art'? No. Simply a part of Wing Chuns development, specifically a connection to the Red Boat and families of Lee Shing and Ip Man.


WCK can only be "understood" by and through fighting.

Which lends itself nicely to your idea that Shaolin had nothing to do with the development of WCK, coz if it did it would be about self defence, discipline and life long learning. Funny that :rolleyes:

Whoever this shoe fits...

[t_niehoff]

The only myth here T is your superior knowledge of WCK :o:o:confused:


I make no claim of superior "knowledge" of WCK. As I have said before, it has nothing whatsoever to do with superior knowledge or understanding. That is the theoretical nonfighter perspective.



Did I say Shaolin is the 'source of Martial Art'? No. Simply a part of Wing Chuns development, specifically a connection to the Red Boat and families of Lee Shing and Ip Man.


You misread what I wrote -- Shaolin as "a" source of martial art is mainly MYTH.



Which lends itself nicely to your idea that Shaolin had nothing to do with the development of WCK, coz if it did it would be about self defence, discipline and life long learning. Funny that :rolleyes:

Whoever this shoe fits...

The MYTH of Shaolin fits right into your fantasy about WCK. WCK is a fighting method not about 'self-defense" (SD is a very different thing), fighters/athletes have discipline (more so than fantasy role players), and Buddhist monks care nothing about "life-time learning" (most were illiterate). Please, provide the names of the Buddhist monks from Shaolin that were noted scholars. Exactly.

[Eric_H]

Shaolin being the source of martial art is a MYTH.



Terence,

The are dozens of kung fu systems that trace back to a shaolin origin. If you want to say that all of them are wrong, you need to come up with some proof. You yourself have gone on about the similarities of WCK and other southern fist, and the other southern fist (lung ying, hung gar etc) all claim a Siu Lam heritage as well. You can't say it's A in one thread and then B in another, people might catch on ;)




What is "the YJKYM connection"? I train the YJKYM by using that body structure in application -- there is NO other way to train it.



Incorrect. As i stated previously there is solo training and 2 man training, solo is about getting your own pieces correct w/o challenge, then you ramp up the challenge in the application. If you don't know how do do something with no resistance you can't possibly do it right against resistance. Two sides of the same coin, both are necessary for functional fighting. Unless you think Boxers never work on their footwork without a sparring partner?


@CFT/LoneTiger:

Yes, i mean wobble board like training. I did some sticking drills with another KF sifu where each of our legs was on an individual unstable platform. You really find out how good your balance/gravity control is in that type of situation. It made me a big fan of using wobble boards/unstable platforms etc to enhance my horse. IME it makes you **** hard to sweep.

If you wanna try the cheapest way I've found of it, get some 1/2 foam rollers and stand on the flat side and then try out your chi sao. Just be careful you don't roll an ankle.

[t_niehoff]

Some of you guys might find it worthwhile to read the works of Brian Kennedy and Elizabeth Guo.

[Sardinkahnikov]

Let it be noted that while Shaolin might not have been a development center for martial arts, they DID practice kung fu, since they had their own militia to defend their landholds. General Qi even added some Shaolin staff work in his New Book of Effective Disciplines.

[LoneTiger108]

Some of you guys might find it worthwhile to read the works of Brian Kennedy and Elizabeth Guo.

Post a link to examples of their work T and we can all see where your influences come from eh?!

I take it they are devoted practitioners of Martial Arts ;):rolleyes:

[LoneTiger108]

@CFT/LoneTiger:

Yes, i mean wobble board like training. I did some sticking drills with another KF sifu where each of our legs was on an individual unstable platform. You really find out how good your balance/gravity control is in that type of situation. It made me a big fan of using wobble boards/unstable platforms etc to enhance my horse. IME it makes you **** hard to sweep.

If you wanna try the cheapest way I've found of it, get some 1/2 foam rollers and stand on the flat side and then try out your chi sao. Just be careful you don't roll an ankle.

I too have found similar practises to enhance my stance and mobility skills, although I must admit mine are a tad more traditional ;)

For anyone in the UK, pop along to your local B&Q and check their yard for cut down logs used for stepping stines and garden features. They're less than a foot off the ground and are a perfect starting point before you start stacking them up.

And if you have ever wondered what use that is, try any mobility in this way and tell me what happens if your foot alignment is just slightly off :eek: You do more than turn an ankle, you graize them too! :D

Safer ways were also experiemented with and if I was to say what piece of traditional equipment was used nobody would believe how they didn't guess...

[t_niehoff]

Post a link to examples of their work T and we can all see where your influences come from eh?!

I take it they are devoted practitioners of Martial Arts ;):rolleyes:

Hey, I have an idea-- why don't you do some f#cking work (research) yourself? Why would a historian, for example, need to be a "devoted practitioner of Martial Arts" to know history?

[Sardinkahnikov]

Post a link to examples of their work T and we can all see where your influences come from eh?!

I take it they are devoted practitioners of Martial Arts ;):rolleyes:

You can find some excerpts from their work in Google Books

http://books.google.com/books?id=iSDt-uhm6t0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=historical+chinese+manuals&hl=pt-BR&ei=e0nUTLGaC8P6lwevm_nHBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Personally, I like their books, I think they have the right attitude. I just wish they added more references and bibliography

[YungChun]

I read some of that..

There seems to be a tendency to want to separate the Art from the culture which spawned it.. The author uses an analogy comparing a Winchester with Christian denominations to relating Taoism or Buddhism to CMA.. It's not a fair comparison especially since the Author does talk of philosophical viewpoints connecting in some case with CMA.. This has never been the case with Rifles...

One can choose to separate CMA from Chinese Philosophy; one can choose to separate CMA from their roots as well, and even separate a CMA from its own basic training methods... So far however there would seem to be less than overwhelming evidence of any benefit to doing so... Simplification is fine, wonderful even, but is the art in question really the same art when you strip much of these things away? Perhaps for those who want to strip all these 'trappings' away the art should be called something else... Simplified Wing Chun, for example.. Hey maybe it would even be better, but not really the same IMO.

The Kuit says pass the art in its entirety.. Well if you are stripping it down, including its basic training methods, and only teaching a handful of elements for the Ring then how could you be?

The TCMA are what they are--make them as effective as you can sure--but change them too much and they become something else... :p

[LoneTiger108]

Hey, I have an idea-- why don't you do some f#cking work (research) yourself?

Okay T! :eek: Put your handbag away :D;)

[LoneTiger108]

You can find some excerpts from their work in Google Books

http://books.google.com/books?id=iSDt-uhm6t0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=historical+chinese+manuals&hl=pt-BR&ei=e0nUTLGaC8P6lwevm_nHBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Personally, I like their books, I think they have the right attitude. I just wish they added more references and bibliography

I had a look through and the general content seems to be very very basic. Probably because they're trying to introduce CMA from its base upwards. I'd be interested to see more in depth research into people who are still alive to be honest. But looks like a good read and something that may be on my crimbo list!

I liked the 'ole 'Lone Wolf' explanation, of the old boys who just shunned the limelight and politics of running a public school but were the bearers of 'special skills'! Reminds me of a few people I have met along the way... ;)

[Yoshiyahu]

Very Interesting topic Terrence. For once your pretty decent. Although some of your comments digress to your usual demanor I have to give you accolades for sharing some useful information with out all the ignorance that only causes rants and raves!

The Front Punch or Meridan Punch has many applications. But one of which is to destroy a person structure. If you put a pressure on a person core they will either be moved or off balance. Meaning if you put force on their center of gravity thier balance will be shifted and they wont have a firm footing. If you can occupy their centerline with your punch you have a dominant posistion. You obstruct half of their attacking line prohibiting certain strikes. Also from the Meridan Punch you can acheive control of ones Center Line and strucutre. My Sifu taught us Partner punches which was adjoining punch that intercepts. The name of the game was to take the other center line with subtle movement and intent!

I get what your saying T and your right. The Punch towards the chest is about destroying a person structure. But there are also punches to injure the nose, split the lip give trauma to the head. Wall Bags, Heavy Bags and certain weight and strenght training exercises develop that more. But I get what your saying. A wing Chun fighter is not going to have the same power as a trained boxer has with a good right hook. The Hook is designed to knock you out. The body mechanics of swinging body weight hit is harder than thrusting body weight hit. But Bareknuckle boxing in the old days had the verticle fist too! But with all that being said. Using your tecnhinques to damage someones structure is wise especially if you decide to be inside fighter. If you can eliminate a person structure and control their ability to mount and attack you have the opportunity to swarm and overwhelm your opponent with a flurries of attacks that get him off balance and open for heavy hit.

see this guy structure was broken by getting hurt by a boxer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6PvtEuncdA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v0vl6iTlC4

No counter attack!

But in short. What take from what your saying or trying to get others to see is an application of the meridan punch is to break your opponents structure. In other words don't only see it as barage of punches that you trade back forth with said opponent. Use the WC punch to your advantage. Use to mount more successful attacks your opponent can't defend, bob or weave. I don't think your saying that the WC punch is merely to uproot or destroy someone structure. What I think your alluding too is that people do not realize it is also use to control or destroy ones structure in addition to all those other things?

I believe this video will illustrate what Terrence means about Wing Chun destroying someones structure?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2FyShoaQwg

Terrence what your view points on controlling your opponents elbow? What are some of the ways outside of Front Punch and Bong Sau you can disrupt a person stance and destroy their structure?

also if you hit someone in the face with force it takes to break structure what would be the out come?

[KPM]

Hi Guys!

I've been away from WCK and this forum for awhile now. Glad to see things haven't changed much! :-) This is a good thread. I have to say, that T can be annoying sometimes, but he knows how to present an argument/debate! And as a physician with a fair amount of "sports medicine" training, I have to say that he hasn't said anything in this thread that contradicts good biomechanics. I think he has been "spot on" through-out. I too, had to make some major adjustments in how I looked at my Wing Chun several years ago. If people are willing to look past lineage teachings and consider good application and good biomechanics, they may see some things in what they are doing that could use some improvements! I certainly did!

Keith

[couch]

Hi Guys!

I've been away from WCK and this forum for awhile now. Glad to see things haven't changed much! :-) This is a good thread. I have to say, that T can be annoying sometimes, but he knows how to present an argument/debate! And as a physician with a fair amount of "sports medicine" training, I have to say that he hasn't said anything in this thread that contradicts good biomechanics. I think he has been "spot on" through-out. I too, had to make some major adjustments in how I looked at my Wing Chun several years ago. If people are willing to look past lineage teachings and consider good application and good biomechanics, they may see some things in what they are doing that could use some improvements! I certainly did!

Keith

Hey Keith! Good to see you back 'round these parts again. Hope all is well.

[t_niehoff]

Hey Keith! Good to see you back 'round these parts again. Hope all is well.

I second that.

[Yoshiyahu]

I second that.

Terrence what your view points on controlling your opponents elbow? What are some of the ways outside of Front Punch and Bong Sau you can disrupt a person stance and destroy their structure?

also if you hit someone in the face with force it takes to break structure what would be the out come?

[LSWCTN1]

Terrence what your view points on controlling your opponents elbow? What are some of the ways outside of Front Punch and Bong Sau you can disrupt a person stance and destroy their structure?

also if you hit someone in the face with force it takes to break structure what would be the out come?

pak, for the elbow; so easy and natural. you can parry like a boxer or press for control...

breaking structure? stepping through almost always works. po pai, lap, pak, elbow, but my personal favourite is the tok palm...

also using something to facilitate the entry to enable some of the above. dai bong, gaan etc.

[Yoshiyahu]

pak, for the elbow; so easy and natural. you can parry like a boxer or press for control...

breaking structure? stepping through almost always works. po pai, lap, pak, elbow, but my personal favourite is the tok palm...

also using something to facilitate the entry to enable some of the above. dai bong, gaan etc.

Have you ever use Jut sao for the elbow? What effect do you think that would have!

[LSWCTN1]

Have you ever use Jut sao for the elbow? What effect do you think that would have!

I am of the opinion that Jut is mainly to teach that the punch has the extra lifting in it for additional power

my fathers Lee Sing lineage also use it to attack limbs too - and it hurts like hell - but in my way of thinking this can be construed as chasing the hands

[LoneTiger108]

Have you ever use Jut sao for the elbow? What effect do you think that would have!


my fathers Lee Sing lineage also use it to attack limbs too - and it hurts like hell - but in my way of thinking this can be construed as chasing the hands

Still going well on this thread then!? How nice to see everyone sharing...

Yoshi - Jutsau can be viewed as a stunning tactic, and depending on the development of your thumb knuckle it will have varied affects on the joints including the elbow. Very snake-like in nature I have found it better to coach it paired with toksau using a yin yang (yum yeunrg) strategy ie. rapid tendon snapping! where the tok lifts the elbow while the jut drops the wrist.

LSWCN1 - As an outright attack the jutsau is only ever effective with that thumb knuckle drilled dude! Good to use to trap and stun the joints too, especially on certain points. I'm interested to know what yuo mean by saying "the punch has extra lifting in it for additional power"?

To me this seems to suggest you're using the dropping movement to gain momentum to punch 'upwards'. This is very common in WSL family from what I've seen and an excellent drill. Just keep in mind that the fist travels in many ways...

[Graham H]

:confused::confused:Why do you guys constantly have to overanalyze everything?!!!! Ving Tsun is meant to be a simple form of combat and I can't understand half of what is wrote on here :rolleyes:

Jut Sau is 50% of an attack. The other 50% being the punch with the other arm. Jut Sau (if performed properly as in Chum Kiu) also gives you your next hit position. It is the same for pak sau (also in Chum Kiu). These actions are for helping the punch reach its target should there be any obstruction.

Simple thinking = intelligent fighting!!!!!

Over thinking = problems!!!!!

GH

[LoneTiger108]

:confused::confused:Why do you guys constantly have to overanalyze everything?!!!! Ving Tsun is meant to be a simple form of combat and I can't understand half of what is wrote on here :rolleyes:

If you think this is over analyzing then I wonder what you would think of my study notes dude!! As much as I appreciate that our art can be simplified, it is definitely not as simple as most make it out to be.


Jut Sau is 50% of an attack. The other 50% being the punch with the other arm.

Sorry, but that is Jutsau WITH a punch. The actual Justsau exists on its own and has many varied ways to apply it fme.


:Jut Sau (if performed properly as in Chum Kiu) also gives you your next hit position. It is the same for pak sau (also in Chum Kiu). These actions are for helping the punch reach its target should there be any obstruction.

Simple thinking = intelligent fighting!!!!!

Over thinking = problems!!!!!

GH

I would have to say oversimplifying leads to misunderstandings and in some rare cases total ignorance! I would also say that Jutsau is just one of an array of hand techniques that is applied to 'assist' your advancing, as you say. You also say it's in CK, so tell us where?

For me, it is first discovered in our 2nd set of SLT.

[m1k3]

:confused::confused:Why do you guys constantly have to overanalyze everything?!!!! Ving Tsun is meant to be a simple form of combat and I can't understand half of what is wrote on here :rolleyes:


Simple thinking = intelligent fighting!!!!!

Over thinking = problems!!!!!

GH

Graham, I agree 100%.

WC gives you a tool set, how you use it will be different than how I use it. Different physical and psychological attributes will determine the best way for each of us to use these tools.

Look at boxing for example. A limited number of tools yet a huge number of ways to use them. Counter puncher, swarmer, power puncher, classic boxer, etc. Different approaches, same tools and all are right.

The people who are really good are the ones who can transition from one approach to the other.

BTW, a good punch to the face disrupts structure also.

[Graham H]

Ahhhhhhh Lone Tiger!!! We meet again!!!! :D:D


If you think this is over analyzing then I wonder what you would think of my study notes dude!! As much as I appreciate that our art can be simplified, it is definitely not as simple as most make it out to be.

I probably wouldn't read them mate!!! I have a short attention span and don't beleive in over complicated Kung Fu systems.:p



Sorry, but that is Jutsau WITH a punch. The actual Justsau exists on its own and has many varied ways to apply it fme.


Jut Sau exists on its own in SLT. SLT is not for fighting. Its an exercise!!! I only have one Jut Sau. You can keep all yours!



I would have to say oversimplifying leads to misunderstandings and in some rare cases total ignorance!

Not in my case brother!!! :)


I would also say that Jutsau is just one of an array of hand techniques that is applied to 'assist' your advancing,

....used to assist the punch in my lineage mate!!


You also say it's in CK, so tell us where?

I don't how you do it in your lineage. In mine there are 3 Jut Sau's with a punch prior to the 3 turning Bong Saus (where there is also a jut sau). Most people call these actions Jeet Sau or Jip Sau and they use it to try and break arms. That is stupid thinking in my opinion. Jut Sau/Pak Sau with a punch (Tan Sau) and these movements are used to assist the punch should it be obstructed. This conforms with the principle of Chum Kiu........to fight directly to the target in the most economical way.

I hope you enjoy disagreeing with that!!!! LOL


For me, it is first discovered in our 2nd set of SLT.

The second set is CK is it not or is your SLT more complicated as well?

The Jut Sau action is performed many times in the forms, not just the few I hav stated above..........a very important action for assisting striking when limbs are in the way ;)

GH

[CFT]

The second set is CK is it not or is your SLT more complicated as well?

The Jut Sau action is performed many times in the forms, not just the few I hav stated above..........a very important action for assisting striking when limbs are in the way ;)Graham, from what I have read, LSWCK have different terminology for sub-groupings within their forms. So SNT or CK can be broken down into subsets for practice. Maybe a practice carried over from the Gu Lao heritage.

In SNT, isn't there a double jut after the sequence: double lan --> double fak sau --> double lan --> double fuk sau (--> double jut)?

[Graham H]

In SNT, isn't there a double jut after the sequence: double lan --> double fak sau --> double lan --> double fuk sau (--> double jut)?

.....double lan --> double fak sau --> double lan --> double jum sau --> double tan sau --> double jut sau ;);)

GH

[LoneTiger108]

Ahhhhhhh Lone Tiger!!! We meet again!!!! :D:D

I'm sure I will bemore civilized this time round dude. Learning to just shut up is taking me a while but I'm getting there...


Jut Sau exists on its own in SLT. SLT is not for fighting. Its an exercise!!! I only have one Jut Sau. You can keep all yours!

....used to assist the punch in my lineage mate!!

So does this mean you think CK is actually a fighting set? And SLT isn't? For me CK is a power building form to assist with entering. None of the forms are fighting sets like Karate katas fme.

And you contradict yourself here too.


The Jut Sau action is performed many times in the forms, not just the few I hav stated above


I don't how you do it in your lineage. In mine there are 3 Jut Sau's with a punch prior to the 3 turning Bong Saus (where there is also a jut sau). Most people call these actions Jeet Sau or Jip Sau and they use it to try and break arms.

I'm still having trouble indentifying where you're talking about. 3 Jutsaus with a punch? What set?? How can I disagree without knowing what you're talking about dude! Give me a chance...


The second set is CK is it not or is your SLT more complicated as well?

No I find how we break down the forms less complicated. My SLT has 6 sets, divided into 3 'sections' by Ip Man. Every time you huen sau and draw the fist back indicates the end of a set.


Graham, from what I have read, LSWCK have different terminology for sub-groupings within their forms. So SNT or CK can be broken down into subsets for practice. Maybe a practice carried over from the Gu Lao heritage.

Sounds correct to me, except for the Gulao heritage thingy. More likely from Ng Jung Soh as the Gulao stuffs are something completely separate and varies from Sifu to Sifu. The Sup Yee Sik/Dai Nim Tao and all that jazz!

My Sifu taught the SLT this way because that's how he was taught. Other Sifus like Austin Goh do not teach it like that from what I have seen, as they are more similar to Ip Mans 'sectioned' version. Same images, just different approach to breaking it down and explaining each set/section.

[CFT]

.....double lan --> double fak sau --> double lan --> double jum sau --> double tan sau --> double jut sau ;);)Cheers for that Graham.

[Graham H]

I'm sure I will bemore civilized this time round dude. Learning to just shut up is taking me a while but I'm getting there...

Its all good fun aint it? :D


So does this mean you think CK is actually a fighting set? And SLT isn't? For me CK is a power building form to assist with entering. None of the forms are fighting sets like Karate katas fme.


For me CK is for learning how to fight using Ving Tsun. Every single action in the form is for improving certain actions and concepts needed for fighting.

You cannot fight using SLT as you are stood still :D The actions within are very one dimensional. They do not function correctly until the waist rotation and step is added. SLT is very abstract. It doesn't mean too much until Chum Kiu. Its purely an exercise to start building the correct foundations.....i.e. bringing the elbow in front of the body so that the Ving Tsun punch can be executed properly.
Another example is the reason why we perform the same action with two arms in the form. These are not meant to be done that way in fighting but they are there to help the student get balance between the strong and weak side of the body. It is also for improving co-ordination.

SLT is an exercise.......a small or young idea.......it doesn't come alive until Chum Kiu!!!!!!!!!!!


And you contradict yourself here too.

Really??



I'm still having trouble indentifying where you're talking about. 3 Jutsaus with a punch? What set?? How can I disagree without knowing what you're talking about dude! Give me a chance...

In Chum Kiu. We perform 3 jut saus simultaneously with 3 Tan saus. In my lineage Tan Sau is a punching concept so its 3 jut saus with a punch. Its the right arm over left, left arm over right bit if you are ghetting lost!! ;)



No I find how we break down the forms less complicated. My SLT has 6 sets, divided into 3 'sections' by Ip Man. Every time you huen sau and draw the fist back indicates the end of a set.

I trust WSL and Philipp Bayers idea of Ving Tsun ;)

GH

[LoneTiger108]

Its all good fun aint it? :D

Definitely dude.


For me CK is for learning how to fight using Ving Tsun. Every single action in the form is for improving certain actions and concepts needed for fighting.

I agree. I thought you were referring to CK as a 'fighting form' like a Karate kata. I agree that it's used to develop fighting tools, actions or concepts whatever, but as I said, mainly for entering.

I never meant that SLT was a fighting form, just making a comparison as if to say if SLT isn't, then why is CK? Or BJ?

See above for my definition of a fighting form!


SLT is an exercise.......a small or young idea.......it doesn't come alive until Chum Kiu!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree 100% IF you follow the Ip Man curriculum. With me, I was trained in Plum Flower Wooden Man which, in its essence, 'gives birth' to SLT as it include all mobility work required to use it. It also 'enables' the CK, making sure you're whole body is moving correctly and most of all naturally.


In Chum Kiu. We perform 3 jut saus simultaneously with 3 Tan saus. In my lineage Tan Sau is a punching concept so its 3 jut saus with a punch. Its the right arm over left, left arm over right bit if you are ghetting lost!! ;)

You mean the double lansaus that turn 180 degrees?


I trust WSL and Philipp Bayers idea of Ving Tsun ;)

As I would too if he was my Sifu. Having trust should not close you off to older ideas my friend.

[Graham H]

You mean the double lansaus that turn 180 degrees?

No I don't!!!




As I would too if he was my Sifu. Having trust should not close you off to older ideas my friend.

Their ideas died with them mate. If they didn't then WSL, Ip Chun, Ip Ching, Chu Shong Tin etc etc etc......would be teaching the same thing. They are not and I stopped thinking that it is because of interpretation years ago. Just like in my school....some are weak and others are weaker :D

WSL had a certain intelligence and connection with Yip Man. It must have been that way. Unfortunately some of WSL's students didn't have that "certain intelligence"
GH

[Graham H]

.......................or at least thats what I think so don't tell the Ving Tsun police on me!! :D

[CFT]

You mean the double lansaus that turn 180 degrees?The 3 juts over tan are after the 180-deg turning double lan.

In the CK form that Yip Man taught his Foshan students it is a fuk sau over the tan, not jut. Don't know how much of a difference it would make development wise. What do you think Graham?

[Graham H]

The 3 juts over tan are after the 180-deg turning double lan.

In the CK form that Yip Man taught his Foshan students it is a fuk sau over the tan, not jut. Don't know how much of a difference it would make development wise. What do you think Graham?

Unable to think of that as Fook Sau is a punching concept to me so fook sau over tan sau would be two punches which doesn't make sense. These actions are for opening the way for the punch in my lineage. (should it be required of course.....no obstructions then no need for jut sau)

GH

[k gledhill]

CK is about making attacks with mobility , we use all the juts, paks, bongs, facing etc...
SLT teaches the elbows to strike out/ leave, from our strong point, the center iow the elbows are made to go to the center 'behind' the fist, the fist x the centerline slightly to intercept and sweep simultaneously.

The drills make the centered striking and forearms become aligned and have stability and force from CK body weight/momentum..etc...

very ingeniously simple...:D but doing all this isnt easy under pressure...so lots of training.

[Graham H]

but doing all this isnt easy under pressure...so lots of training.

.........and thinking ;);););););););)

[LoneTiger108]

Their ideas died with them mate. If they didn't then WSL, Ip Chun, Ip Ching, Chu Shong Tin etc etc etc......would be teaching the same thing.

Well, apparently Lee Shings teaching DIDN'T die with him dude, or I've just made up everything I've said on here! As for the others you mention, all younger martial artists than my Sigung. And I don't mean to be too analytical here but WSL's method should be exactly like Ip Chuns/Chings or Chu Shong Tins in ESSENCE. Applications are their own ideas in the end.


WSL had a certain intelligence and connection with Yip Man. It must have been that way. Unfortunately some of WSL's students didn't have that "certain intelligence"

Coming from the man who talks of simplicity!!

This "certain intelligence" you speak of is a mystery to me. I'm of the opinion that there are no secrets other than good old hard work both physically and mentally.


The 3 juts over tan are after the 180-deg turning double lan.

Oh. I see now. That's actually the Jut/Tok combination I talked of ages ago! But Grahams also said before that there are no Toksaus in WSLVT?

I think the forms will remain a mystery until someone actually teaches them properly, and in all honesty I don't think any Chinese Sifu has to this day.


In the CK form that Yip Man taught his Foshan students it is a fuk sau over the tan, not jut. Don't know how much of a difference it would make development wise.

See this is what I mean.

How come you don't understand that the jutsau in CK IS a fooksau? Fook is the concept and jut is the actual term used in application. There is a bong and tan Jutsau too, or am I making no sense again?

When you are 'solo' as in the forms it is normal to only refer to the conceptual hand positions like bong, tan and fook and maybe this is what Ip Man done in Foshan. It also indicates that he didn't teach them guys to USE it! Whereas with WSL he obviously DID!

[CFT]

Oh. I see now. That's actually the Jut/Tok combination I talked of ages ago! But Grahams also said before that there are no Toksaus in WSLVT?They don't call it tok sau in WSLVT. What Graham has explained about the jut/tan punch relationship makes sense if you appreciate that PB teaches the tan/jum -> punch ideas.


How come you don't understand that the jutsau in CK IS a fooksau? Fook is the concept and jut is the actual term used in application.Seems to me all of the Wing Chun hand actions can be concepts. Why do you differentiate fook as conceptual and jut as application?


There is a bong and tan Jutsau too, or am I making no sense again?Where is that then?


When you are 'solo' as in the forms it is normal to only refer to the conceptual hand positions like bong, tan and fook and maybe this is what Ip Man done in Foshan. It also indicates that he didn't teach them guys to USE it! Whereas with WSL he obviously DID!I don't think so. How can you tell from my bgeninner's knowledge what the Foshan students knew?

[LoneTiger108]

They don't call it tok sau in WSLVT. What Graham has explained about the jut/tan punch relationship makes sense if you appreciate that PB teaches the tan/jum -> punch ideas.

I think I also understand where this "tan is a punch" concept originated but there's no point trying to teach old dogs new tricks is there!?

Listen, it's CK dude! ALL terms should be the SAME. If there are variations, then there have been some that have been taught and some that have not.


Seems to me all of the Wing Chun hand actions can be concepts. Why do you differentiate fook as conceptual and jut as application?

No. I disagree. There is an engine that drives everyones Wing Chun imho and that has to be THE SAME in all families. That is the SEED of bong tan and fook. The TERMS like jutsau give meaning to the hand and shouldn't be considered the same.


I don't think so. How can you tell from my bgeninner's knowledge what the Foshan students knew?

Dude. It was YOU who said they use the fooksau and I was attempting to explain why that would be. If I can't share what I think, how could you "not think so"!?

[Graham H]

WSL's method should be exactly like Ip Chuns/Chings or Chu Shong Tins in ESSENCE. Applications are their own ideas in the end.

Well they are not!!!


This "certain intelligence" you speak of is a mystery to me. I'm of the opinion that there are no secrets other than good old hard work both physically and mentally.

This "certain intelligence" idea was used by WSL himself. I have it in writing.




Oh. I see now. That's actually the Jut/Tok combination I talked of ages ago! But Grahams also said before that there are no Toksaus in WSLVT?

Correct!!! There isn't.




I think the forms will remain a mystery until someone actually teaches them properly, and in all honesty I don't think any Chinese Sifu has to this day.

I don't agree with that!!!




How come you don't understand that the jutsau in CK IS a fooksau?

In my lineage Fook Sau and Jut Sau are two totally different ideas!! ;)

GH

[Vajramusti]

Lone Tiger 108 sez:
"
I think the forms will remain a mystery until someone actually teaches them properly, and in all honesty I don't think any Chinese Sifu has to this day."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

?????????!!!!!! What in the world.......?

joy chaudhuri

[Graham H]

You get all sorts on here LMAO.

Lone Tiger you have got to have made the second worse statement on this forum ever!!!! LOL